A Greek lesson of John 1:1-3; John’s Testimony to the Deity of Christ

[@GabrielMartinez-su8di]

As a seminary student taking his 2nd semester of biblical Greek, I am so appreciative of anytime Dr. White takes the time to do this. It helps bring together everything I'm learning.

[@billdoor2682]

Check out Daiky Dose of Greek. Dr. Plummer doesn't really exegete the text, but he does go through translation.

[@r.e.jr.1152]

Gabriel Martinez You are being taken on a ride! White's teaching on the Logos of John 1:1 contradicts the bible, Monotheism, and common sense. If the Logos is God, and is face to face with God, you are teaching that there were two Gods in the beginning. Even Trinitarians claim to believe in one God! What happened here?

[@billdoor2682]

@@r.e.jr.1152 This is standard orthodox trinitarian theology that has been confessed for the last 2000 years. One God in three persons, of one substance, coequal and coeternal. This topic gets deep quick, so I suggest looking for a better resource than KZbin comments.

[@r.e.jr.1152]

@@billdoor2682 Bill, I make KZbin videos myself. True that trinitarian theology has been confessed for a long time. Why do you think that is? Have you heard of persecution?

[@faithfultheology]

​@R. E. Jr. You were just arguing with Me other day on trinity lol. Was this before you converted. 😅

[@kathyern861]

Glory to God in the highest!

[@kathyern861]

and peace to His people on earth

[@scriptureexamined4664]

Man, I could listen all day to Uncle Jimmy illuminating Biblical Greek. Who agrees with me that we need a series of him teaching Greek online?

[@TheFilipaze]

Yep that would be great

[@addictedtojesus922]

Yeah. Uncle Jimmy is cool.

[@doomerquiet1909]

I used to be kjv only, but He is what got me interested in greek and in church history, years later i find myself still fascinated with church history (always grab the first hand documents when you can) and now understanding his greek explanations (as i’ve been learning greek. Keep watching this guy and his debates if you would like to grow in knowledge of the church without a roman catholic bias, ryan reeves is great as well if you’re looking for a consecutive lecture format.

[@slickbill9488]

Sad that you allowed this man to deceive you with gnostic and discarded texts.

[@doomerquiet1909]

@@slickbill9488let me guess, Predestination is a scary word and your a premillenial dispensationalist. I’ve assigned a category for you in my head i’m hoping i got it right

[@andrewgraham6496]

Re: John 1:1-3 White and JWs? Here White plays on the ignorance of his readers, when it comes to John 1:1-3 and propagates his usual spin and half truths about JWs! NB, Notice that it is always about JW"s 99.999% of the time and omits pertinent information from his readers! White also mentions the name "Yahweh", this is an impossible name (first seen in writing in 1599 ce) in Hebrew and in English, especially Old English! I've come across White many times and his spin and rhetoric is always the same!

[@charlestiraco8634]

Hello. I've heard him not do very well debating with Greg Stafford and David Bernard on different topics. As for this one, there isn't a single scripture where Jesus says anything like "I am God." That's certainly a big red flag in any language.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

It seems this video has attracted the attention of some JW Trolls. So let's start with John 1:1-3, the JW goto passage for trying to prove Jesus isn't God: _In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made._ The first thing to note is that this passage alone totally destroys the JW claim that Jesus is a creation, since he has been with God since the very beginning. Neither is Jesus some sort of demi-god. The third clause of John 1:1 in Greek reads καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (kai theos ēn ho logos), literally meaning "and God was the Word". JWs make much of the lack of the article ὁ (ho) before Θεὸς (theos) in the third clause of the Greek text, saying its absence means the Word was only "a god". But they are inconsistent: John 1:18 & 8:54, Romans 8:33 & 9:5 and 1 Corinthians 8:4 & 8:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3 & 5:19, Galatians 6:7, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:5, and Revelation 21:7 all lack the article ὁ (ho) before θεὸς (theos) with exactly the same accenting, but the New World Translation (NWT) has no trouble omitting the indefinite article there and translating θεὸς (theos) there as 'God'. 2 Corinthians 1:3 even has the exact same καὶ θεὸς (kai theos) wording as John 1:1 following ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν (ho patēr tōn oiktirmōn) - an unambiguous reference to God the Father! On the JW's translation 'principle', 2 Corinthians 1:3 in the NWT should be translated as: _Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and a god of all comfort,_ thus differentiating between God as _the Father of mercies_ and Jesus Christ as _a god of all comfort,_ but they failed to do so. Oops! In all, there are 282 instances of the anarthrous θεός (theos) in its various inflections in the Greek New Testament, but the NWT only translates it as 'a god', 'god', 'gods' or 'godly' 16 times, demonstrating a mere 5.7% (1/17.6) commitment to their translation 'principle'. The next paragraph is for nerds Unlike English, Greek Grammar lacks the indefinite article and the Greek article functions differently from the English definite article. Plus the Greek article isn't needed for a noun to be definite. Nouns lacking the article are anarthrous. In Greek Grammar, θεός (theos) in the third clause of John 1:1 is what is known as a pre-verbal anarthrous nominative predicate noun. That is, the noun precedes a verb, lacks the article, and is the subject of and qualifies the object of the clause. In the New Testament, this form almost always denotes a quality. What this tells us is that the Word is qualitatively God. Put another way, the Word is distinct from but has the same nature or essence as God. There are very few cases in the New Testament where this form is indefinite. Thus, the onus is those arguing for the indefinite sense to explain why it has to be so here. Had John inserted the article before θεός (theos), that would mean the Word is identical with God (Unitarianism). The NWT even goes so far as to have Mark 12:27 say "He is not a God of the dead, but of the living" and to have Luke 20:38 say "he is not a God of the dead, but of the living" - note the quite unnecessary _a_ before God. Matthew 22:32 creates a problem for them, though, because that verse has the article - ὁ Θεὸς (ho theos) - which explains why the NWT translates the other two as 'a God' in spite of the lack of the article. The NWT translates Matthew 22:32 as "He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living". Translating καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (kai theos ēn ho logos) as "and the Word was a god", as in the NWT, is polytheistic - a stance the NWT's treatment of Matthew 22:33, Mark 22:27, and Luke 20:38 reinforces. That Jesus is fully God (not just 'a god') is confirmed in: *John 8:58* _Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."_ The Judeans' response in John 8:58 demonstrates that they fully understood the implications of what Jesus was saying. *John 10:30* _I and the Father are one_ The Greek adjective ἕν (hen), meaning 'one', being in the neuter - not the masculine εἶς (heis), which would say the Father and Son are one person - asserts unity of essence, not merely being in communion, or unity of will or of power. That this is the correct understanding is confirmed by the Judeans’ reaction at John 10:31-33. Jesus’ statement denies both Sabellianism (Unitarianism) and Arianism (JWs). The same sentiment is found in: *John 17:11* _Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one._ and *John 17:22* _The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one_ Note that there is no suggestion Christians will attain the same essence or nature as God but that, as God's sons, Christians will ultimately share the one essence or nature - as Christ's bride. *John 20:28* _Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"_ Note that Jesus accepted Thomas' acclamation. *Romans 9:5* _to them (the Israelites) belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen._ *Philippians 2:5-11* _Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father._ *Colossians 1:15-19* _He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities - all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell_ *Titus **2:11**-13* _For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ_ *Hebrews 1:2-8* _in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." Of the angels he says, "Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire." But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom"_ *2 Peter 1:1* _Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ_ *1 John 5:20* _And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life._ Additionally, for JWs to argue there are two gods in John 1:1 makes them polytheists. In which case they have a real problem with their failure to truly worship Jesus in light of: *John 5:22-23* _The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him._ Note how the Son is to be given the same honor as the Father and the Father isn't honored by those who refuse to do so. The NWT, as might be expected, mistranslates most of the above Christological passages for the sake of their dogma and contrary to Greek grammar and/or context. Now watch the JW Trolls respond with their obsfucations, specious nonsense, and sophistry...

[@talkingwhiskey1507]

Best comment I have ever read! I am saving what you wrote. Excellent!

[@christistheway7107]

As for John 1:18, lets see the video: "John 1:1 Jesus is 'a god' | (NWT Defended)"

[@talkingwhiskey1507]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh Eric? I am confused, I thought you denied Jesus’s divinity.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

@@talkingwhiskey1507 Who's Eric? Not me!

[@talkingwhiskey1507]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh oh good! I feel a little silly now. Your name is almost the same and the white B inside a blue circle is the same as another channel I use to watch that deals with this subject . I was very confused because he is a strong unitarian. Thank you for the clarification. Your comment is still the best. I’ve copied and studied your post. Thank you.

[@joshhigdon4951]

I saw this yesterday and was mesmerized! I wish I could sit under Dr. White for a few years to learn this. The church needs koine Greek scholars until Christ's return!

[@amichiganblackman3200]

I'm seriously considering learning the ancient languages and Dr. White had a lot to do with that.

[@majestyhype9605]

@@amichiganblackman3200 same here I've been contemplating it. It seems to open up a way deeper understanding of scripture.

[@r.e.jr.1152]

@@amichiganblackman3200 Don't be silly!

[@xblakelfoglex]

@@amichiganblackman3200 I am currently self-studying Greek and Hebrew all because of this blessing of an elder and scholar 🙌

[@theservantsresource3565]

Does anybody know if there's a video where Dr. White addresses the Scottish court case (1952?) involving Frederick Franz of the Watchtower cult, and what that case was about? Apparently Mr. Franz, whom his excommunicated nephew Raymond Franz claimed was one of the New World Translation's "translators," demonstrated in court that he did not know either biblical Greek or Hebrew. I would like to know more about this particular court case, and what the JW's were doing in Scotland at the time.

[@RiskeFactor]

The Douglas Walsh trial was in 1954. Lots of inaccurate information has been circulated regarding this case by writers such as Dr. Walter Martin and Dr. Ron Rhodes. The only issue that was demonstrated regarding translation was that of Freddy Franz being asked whether he could translate a verse in English and translate it into Hebrew. His response was basically that he would not attempt such a translation.

[@theservantsresource3565]

@@RiskeFactor Correct; because he couldn’t. He dropped out of college, before the end of the first year. That was also in the trial transcript. So essentially he was unqualified to translate anything from Hebrew into English. The only Hebrew he recognized, and knew its meaning (according to the transcript) was the Tetragrammaton; the name of God: YHWH. Essentially what the transcript of Franz’ testimony at the Walsh trial demonstrates is that the JW organization had zero experts trained in the translation of Hebrew or Greek who were willing to come forward and demonstrate any Biblical competence whatsoever. The one who did come forward, Franz, proved himself a fraud.

[@RiskeFactor]

@@theservantsresource3565 lots of inaccuracies in your statement my good friend. Franz was not asked to translate from Hebrew to English, rather from English INTO Hebrew. He dropped out weeks before completing his junior year and studied mostly Classical Greek. JWs that have studied ancient languages or teach them at the university level prefer to maintain a low profile. Hope this helps…

[@theservantsresource3565]

@@RiskeFactor I appreciate your attempt, but you know and I know that’s just utter nonsense. If they (at that time) had had any expertise AT ALL, they would have defended themselves. They did not. That’s not a “low profile.” It’s an attempt to bamboozle people into believing a lie: that the NWT was actually translated by competent biblical scholars. The Watchtower organization has s one of the largest corporate gaslighting organizations in the world. Following the false 1975 prophecy, an estimated 1 million JWs left the organization, including Raymond Franz, Frederick’s nephew, and a former Watchtower leader. How much griftiing and gaslighting does it take to realize you’ve been conned by the best?

[@RiskeFactor]

@@theservantsresource3565 who said anything about the NWT committee? The ones that keep a low profile aren’t at HQs. Your info is dated and incomplete. FYI, Ray wasn’t privy to everything.

[@thelthrythquezada8397]

I started at about 8am making notes in my Logos Bible software (if you dodn't have one of those I recommend it, but its not cheap) here it is 10:37 am and I just now finished the lesson...

[@MichaelTheophilus906]

Deut 6.4-6, Mark 12.28-32, John 17.3, John 20.17, Rom 15.6, Rom 16.27, I Cor 8.6, II Cor 11.31, I Tim 2.5, Rev 3.2, Rev 3.12, and many other scriptures.

[@kennethlewis2477]

This was incredible! Thank you so much for doing this in this kind of format Dr. White! Super easy to follow along and easy to grasp what you were saying.

[@SlingOfDavid9000]

destruction of john 1:1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGTOi3qLjqt1r6c

[@wendelburlat8410]

In Greek, omitting the article can change the meaning or nuance of a sentence. Greek, like many languages, uses articles (the equivalent of "the" in English) to specify nouns. Here are a few ways the meaning can shift: 1. Generic vs. Specific: Without the article, a noun can become more generic or abstract. For example: With article: "Το βιβλίο" (To vivlio) - "The book" Without article: "Βιβλίο" (Vivlio) - "A book" or simply "book" in a general sense 2. Indefinite vs. Definite: Greek doesn't have a separate indefinite article like "a" or "an" in English, but the absence of the definite article often implies an indefinite meaning. With article: "Το παιδί" (To paidi) - "The child" Without article: "Παιδί" (Paidi) - "A child" or "child" in general 3. Subject Emphasis: In some cases, omitting the article can place more emphasis on the subject or the essence of the noun. With article: "Ο άνθρωπος είναι θνητός" (O anthropos einai thnitos) - "The man is mortal" Without article: "Άνθρωπος είναι θνητός" (Anthropos einai thnitos) - "Man is mortal" (emphasizing mankind in general) Understanding the specific context in which the article is omitted is crucial, as it can subtly change the meaning or focus of the sentence. John 1:1 in the New Testament is a key verse often discussed in terms of its grammatical structure, particularly the use of articles in Greek. The verse reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In Greek, it is written as: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." Let's break down the relevant parts where the article is involved: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ" (En archē) - "In the beginning": The phrase does not have an article before "ἀρχῇ" (beginning), which is common in Greek when referring to abstract concepts or to emphasize the generality of the term. "ὁ Λόγος" (ho Logos) - "the Word": "ὁ" is the definite article, meaning "the". This specifies "the Word" rather than "a word". "πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" (pros ton Theon) - "with God": "τὸν" is the definite article, specifying "the God". "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" (kai Theos ēn ho Logos) - "and the Word was God": Here, "Θεὸς" (Theos) does not have an article before it. The lack of an article before "Θεὸς" has been a significant point of discussion. Without the article, "Θεὸς" is qualitative, meaning it describes the nature or essence of "the Word" rather than identifying "the Word" as a specific entity called "God". Thus, the phrase can be understood as "the Word was divine" or "the Word was of the same nature as God." In summary, the use of the definite article in Greek is critical for understanding specificity and definiteness. In John 1:1, the absence of the article before "Θεὸς" while it is present before "Λόγος" and "Θεόν" indicates a qualitative sense, emphasizing the divine nature of "the Word" rather than equating "the Word" as a specific entity named "God." This nuanced grammatical structure has been central to theological interpretations of the nature of Christ in Christian doctrine.

[@asadyer3208]

Can you send me these notes?

[@oleredk233]

And the Word was God. God is predicate nominative here. Absence of article doesn't have any effect on it.

[@oleredk233]

​@@asadyer3208 And the Word was God. God is predicate nominative. It cannot be translated as divine.

[@wendelburlat8410]

@@oleredk233 Anyway this Not a Universal Rule: The rule does not imply that every predicate nominative without an article is definite. It only applies in the specific syntactical structure that Colwell described (i.e., a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb). There are cases where a predicate nominative without the article might be indefinite or qualitative, depending on the context. It does not dictate a one-size-fits-all approach. Colwell's Rule permits but does not demand a definite translation of predicate nominatives that lack the article. You use the special rule to acommodate your belief inspite of its own limitation. In choosing best rendering not only a modern approach but to use the old translation. let consider this translation that predates the doctrine of trinity thats influence the rendering theos as definite: The Sahidic Coptic translation of the Gospel of John, including the rendering of John 1:1, predates the formalization of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian theology. This translation was made in a time when early Christian communities were still developing their understanding of Christ's nature and relationship to God. Given that the Sahidic Coptic version uses the indefinite article in the second occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 ("the Word was a god"), it suggests a different nuance than what is commonly found in later translations influenced by Trinitarian doctrine. This could indicate that the translators of this Coptic version may have had a different theological perspective or, at the very least, were not influenced by the later, more developed Trinitarian framework. The formal doctrine of the Trinity-understanding God as three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one essence-was more clearly defined after the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. Since the Sahidic translation predates this council, it is less likely to reflect a Trinitarian bias and may provide insight into how early Christians understood the relationship between God and Jesus before these theological debates were settled.

[@wendelburlat8410]

It's true that many modern translations of the Bible, especially those produced after the formalization of Trinitarian doctrine, have been influenced by that theological perspective. Older translations, or those produced in linguistic and cultural contexts less influenced by Trinitarian doctrine, can offer best rendering in John 1:1 This approach is better, which draws on these older translations, may provide a perspective that aligns more closely with early Christian understanding before later doctrinal developments. This can be particularly important when studying verses that are theologically significant, like John 1:1, where different translations can lead to varying interpretations of key concepts. Im waiting your response. Peace

[@terryambrose6260]

Insert “wide-eyed” emoji as Dr. White takes 30 minutes to only partially dissect 1 verse. Amazing to watch.

[@r.e.jr.1152]

Terry Ambrose He is violating the very teaching of sound doctrine. You do not teach doctrine from one verse of scripture. Study the Reformation!

[@terryambrose6260]

@@r.e.jr.1152 was my comment about his doctrine teaching? No. In your haste to bash you miss my point.

[@r.e.jr.1152]

@@terryambrose6260 Okay Terry, if I did, I am sorry.

[@yasaaley]

Common sense will tell us that a person's word is something caused by the person. If caused then the Word is not eternal. Dear brethren, if the Word is not caused by the Father then it is not of the Father. Let us pay heed to what the Lord said about himself and about his relationship with the Father.

[@michaelsowerby8198]

Excellent teaching. Thank you.

[@AndyAyala-]

I guess I don’t understand why it’s translated in similar pattern to Greek until it comes to “and God is the Word”.. is it a grammatical reason or theological reason

[@makarov138]

The Christ Jesus is the individual, the Rock, that followed Israel in the desert long ago, as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 1 Cor 10:4 He is the “I AM” that instructed Moses to speak to the people. JN 8:24 He is the Logos that is God. And if He is not God, then Jehovah is not God.

[@Scott-t2p]

Not literally the rock I am he the man known before Abraham

[@Swordoftruth289]

From Sir Anthony Buzzard: on john 1,1 and neoplatonic inspiration on councils and creeds. In an illuminating article in Biblical Review J. Harold Ellens points out that titles such as Son of God, as used at the time when the New Testament was written: “were never meant to designate the figures to whom they were applied as divine beings. They meant rather that these figures were imbued with divine spirit, or the Logos. The titles referred to their function and character as men of God, not to their being God. Thinking of a human as being God was strictly a Greek or Hellenistic notion. Thus the early theological debates from the middle of the second century on were largely between Antioch, a center of Jewish Christianity, on the one hand, and Alexandrian Christianity, heavily colored by neo-Plationic speculation, on the other. For the most part, the Jewish Christians’ argument tended to be that they had known Jesus and his family and that he was a human being, a great teacher, one filled with the divine Logos … but that he was not divine in the ontological sense, as the Alexandrians insisted. The arguments persisted in one form or another until Cyril of Alexandria’s faction finally won the day for a highly mythologized Jesus of divine ontological being. Cyril was capable of murdering his fellow bishops to get his way. “By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, this Alexandrian perspective of high Christology was dominant but not uncontested by the Antiochian perspective of low Christology. From Nicea to Chalcedon the speculative and neo-Platonist perspective gained increasing ground and became orthodox Christian dogma in 451 CE. Unfortunately, what the theologians of the great ecumenical councils meant by such creedal titles as Son of God was remote from what those same titles meant in the Gospels. The creeds were speaking in Greek philosophical terms: the gospels were speaking in Second Temple Judaism terms …. The Bishops of the councils should have realized that they had shifted ground from Hebrew metaphor to Greek ontology and in effect betrayed the real Jesus Christ.”[5] It is not difficult to understand that the Bible is abandoned when fundamental terms like Son of God are given new and unbiblical meanings. The Church Councils under the influence of Greek speculative neo-Platonism replaced the New Testament Son of God with a God the Son fashioned by philosophy. When a different meaning for a title is substituted for the original a new faith is created. That new faith became “orthodoxy.” It insisted on its dogmas, on pain of excommunication and damnation (the Athanasian Creed). Nicean dogmatic “orthodoxy” lifted Jesus out of his Hebrew environment, twisted John’s Gospel in an effort to make John fit into “orthodoxy’s” philosophical mold. And so it has remained to this day. Luke 4:8 Jesus says, “It is written, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve'”. Matthew 4:10 Jesus says, “For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve Notice jesus uses "the Lord," and any time jesus is called Lord, the article is removed or not there. Even Jesus says to worship God alone. And to say jesus is "the Lord" When he clearly shows he is the messiah, or servant only, is like saying God anointed God. This is platonism and the law of form Used in church doctrine to eisegete the trinity. I'll leave it at this Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. John 1 1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 all things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. The word is Gods thought or the literal words when he spoke in creation, just like your words are yours and not a physical being. This should be common logic. "All things were made by him" The him is God because it's the only being that was mentioned, unless you just make up some philosophical argument that the word was a pre existent form or personality of God. Jesus was made or begotten so he is a creation of God filled with God's "word" and he spoke God's word.

[@theoutpouring2596]

Do more exegesis - this is helping people

[@addictedtojesus922]

Thanks, Dr. White.

[@DrGazza]

I am learning Attic and Koine Greek, great and helpful grammatical analysis. Only, the Erasmian pronunciation puts me off.

[@franciscafazzo3460]

Add a beginning there's no definite article before arche

[@JoshuaCookLibertyIsRising]

What secular Greek text gives us an example of this? Does anybody know?

[@darealgomaking5852]

Ton Theon! That was funny Dr white! I love your debate with mr ventilation. I have been engaging with INC members and I go to your debate whenever I need a refresher and go to verses. May God bless you keep feeding us.

[@hersheyskwertz9315]

Welp. 26 minutes and 26 seconds in and I’m still confused.

[@H.T.2forever]

Well ... 1) Where exactly does White and other Trintarians come up with rule that mandates because Jn. 1:1a reads "In the beginning 'was' (Gk. "ην") the Word." That this has to mean eternal existence into the past? And not simply mean that Christ was already in existence with God at start of the physical universe at Gen. 1:1 along with the rest of the angelic host for that matter (cf. Job 38:7)? The use of ην in the prologue there doesn't have to mean eternal existence into the past any more than at Jn. 1:10 where it says that "he (Christ) 'was' (ην) in the world. ..." means that Jesus was always in the world from eternity past! 2) White is also really being intellectually dishonest by claiming that ην "was" (an allegedly non-temporal) term only applies to Christ throughout the prologue. Whereas γινομαι "came to be" (a temporal term) is never used of Christ. But this is only true if you use the later punctuation of the text at Jn. 1:3, 4 made by Trintarians around the time of Nicea. When they took the final occurrence of γινομαι from what was the traditional beginning of verse 4, and placed it at the end of verse 3. However, If you use the traditional punctuation favored by the pre-Nicene Fathers. Then White's claim falls flat as both ην and γινομαι are both applied to Christ in verse 4 in "what 'came to be' ('γινομαι') in him 'was' (ην) life...!" White never mentions this of course.... 3) And while it is wrong to simply claim the Greek "θεος" without the article means that Jn. 1:1c is to be translated "and the Word was a god." It is correct to point out that a predicate nominative in Greek like θεος at 1:1c normally requires the article to be grammatically definite. And when it doesn't have the article or is "anarthrous" it indicates that it MAY be indefinite ultimately depending on how it is used in a sentence or the context. Which at Jn.1:1 has the Word (Christ) in the context of being "with" God at 1:1b and 1:2, therefore demanding the indefinite "a god" sense for the second θεος at 1:1c is all. Otherwise you have a flat contradiction of the entire verse if not some sort of modalism or Sabellianism as even White admits.

[@yourssincerely442]

Can you separate a word from the man?

[@andrewsommerdc]

Incredible. TY Dr. White!

[@anissueofursincerity]

In the beginning of what? What began? and God WAS the Word. That is past tense. Why would the text not say O Logos IS God? If everything God is the Word is, and the Father is also what God is, the Word would also be the Father?

[@thatonechristian2487]

Except that John omits the article on Theos on 1:1c PRECISELY so we do not confuse the identity of the Father and the Son while maintaining that they share a nature.

[@FormerTrucker]

Well I like to learn Greek and perhaps Hebrew but it's not required to understand the Bible. One must compare scripture with scripture and read in context

[@billyr9162]

I think it is. This video proves it.

[@louiscorbett3278]

Scripture is spiritual in nature, so only the Holy Ghost can educate us as he sees fit. As St. Augustine says, (paraphrase)"the Scripture is a high tower, but the door is low, so the proud and haughty have to stoop low and humble themselves to enter." A translation cannot express the same nuances as the original languages with certainty, so God can and does, raise up teachers to learn the original languages and correct error and heresy and to guide us to a better understanding of God's word.

[@billyr9162]

@@louiscorbett3278 Correct. Like the Greek word for truth. In modern English we associate the word truth with factually correct. But that's not the Greek. The Greek word is the word hidden with the alpha privative in front of it which negates the word and gives it the opposite meaning. The Greek word for truth literally means to not hide or to come out in the open. A completely different picture in the mind from the English word or meaning. Things that are out in the open are in the light. Light is associated all through The Bible with truth or not hidden. This is what happens when we study the Greek words and Hebrew words in depth. The truth comes out and things are not hidden and open in the light of truth.

[@c19commander44]

O yes it does make a difference knowing hebrew or greek.Dr White more than half an hour just in a few verses. which means it so complicated.

[@victorsjacob]

I wanna join your more classes sir ...

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

I think the speaker meant to say, "Verse 14" and not verse 18, Verse 14 says, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..."

[@SlingOfDavid9000]

destruction of john 1:1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGTOi3qLjqt1r6c

[@Scott-t2p]

The Word was begotten of the Father the only begotten god

[@scripturial]

This is an excellent beard. I wish accordance would update their user interface to suit a more modern UI aesthetic.

[@c19commander44]

In the OT there is someone called " THE WORD" which if one keeps reading it Identify that WORD as a BEIGN .is that why John refers to JESUS as the WORD.

[@timothylawson1151]

Indeed John is getting his Logos theology from the OT and so too is Philo. Here’s something I wrote some time ago that expands on this idea: 1 Sam 3:21 And Jehovah continued to appear in Shiʹloh, for Jehovah revealed himself to Samuel in Shiʹloh by the word of Jehovah.-NWT Jehovah continued to APPEAR (a visual phenomena) to Samuel, for Jehovah REVEALED (a visual phenomena) himself to Samuel in Shiloh ( how did he REVEAL himself?) BY THE WORD OF JEHOVAH. Jehovah STOOD and talked to Samuel! 1Sam 3: 10 Jehovah came and stood there, and he called as at the other times: “Samuel, Samuel!” At this Samuel said: “Speak, for your servant is listening.” So it’s an angel who has APPEARED to Samuel as God’s spokesman, the Word of Jehovah. If the word (dbr) was just an audible phenomenon then how do we account for the language of visibility? 1 Samuel 3:21 And Jehovah continued to appear in Shiʹloh, for Jehovah revealed himself to Samuel in Shiʹloh by the word of Jehovah. Samuel 3:21 seems to me to be the strongest example for the phrase “the word of Jehovah” as an embodied figure and so a title for the angelic representative of Jehovah. 1 Samuel 3:21 combines the appearance and revelation of Jehovah which is a visual phenomena with the “word of Jehovah” which is most often understood as some sort of auditory phenomena but in this context strongly implies an appearance of God named the Word of Jehovah who comes in physical form as God’s spokesman. So when reading the parenthetical statement at 3:7 (Now Samuel had not yet come to know Jehovah, and the word of Jehovah had not yet been revealed to him.) and the initial appearance of Jehovah to Samuel at 3:10 (Jehovah came and stood there, and he called as at the other times: “Samuel, Samuel!” At this Samuel said: “Speak, for your servant is listening.”) we have strong reason to understand “the word of Jehovah” as a person, the angel of Jehovah. Also the statement that in 1 Samuel 3:1 that “the word of Jehovah had become rare in those days; visions were not widespread.” is an indication that the angel of Jehovah who appeared to Abraham, to Moses and who led Israel and who appeared to Gideon had not been seen for some time. Also, we see that 2 Samuel 16:23 suggests that it is an agent (angel) of God that inquiries were made to Jehovah. And that this agent is known as λογος του θεου (the word of God). καὶ ἡ βουλὴ Αχιτοφελ, ἣν ἐβουλεύσατο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταῖς πρώταις, ὃν τρόπον ἐπερωτήσῃ ἐν λόγῳ τοῦ θεοῦ, οὕτως πᾶσα ἡ βουλὴ τοῦ Αχιτοφελ καί γε τῷ Δαυιδ καί γε τῷ Αβεσσαλωμ. _ (2 Sam. 16:23 LXX1) See especially time stamp 34:00 to 49:00 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJXaaJakYsqopdk Keep in mind that translations often smooth out difficult readings of the text and so it’s possible to miss the nuances. For example the English word “witness” is used at Exod 20: 18 to smooth over the grammatical solecism, called zeugma. Witnessing something can also be used in English of audible phenomena. 18 Now all the people were witnessing the thunder and lightning, the sound of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and seeing this made them tremble and stand at a distance. NWT-13. ‎ וְכָל־הָעָם֩ רֹאִ֨ים אֶת־הַקּוֹלֹ֜ת וְאֶת־הַלַּפִּידִ֗ם וְאֵת֙ ק֣וֹל הַשֹּׁפָ֔ר וְאֶת־הָהָ֖ר עָשֵׁ֑ן וַיַּ֤רְא הָעָם֙ וַיָּנֻ֔עוּ וַיַּֽעַמְד֖וּ מֵֽרָחֹֽק׃ (Ex. 20:18 HMT-W4) This phase רֹאִ֨ים אֶת־הַקּוֹלֹ֜ת literally translated is “they saw the voice”. Did God inspire a solecism, a break in grammar? The Septuagint translators didn’t fix the grammar but rather left the zeugma and one’s like Philo understood this to mean that the people saw a divine figure speak to them whom they called the Voice. Heres another evident solecism that involves the Voice...unless you understand that voice is the name of the embodied angelic representative of Yhwh that is walking in the garden of Eden. ‎וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֞וּ אֶת־ק֨וֹל יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן לְר֣וּחַ הַיּ֑וֹם וַיִּתְחַבֵּ֨א הָֽאָדָ֜ם וְאִשְׁתּ֗וֹ מִפְּנֵי֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים בְּת֖וֹךְ עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃ (Gen. 3:8 HMT-W4) Gen 3: 8 Later they heard the voice of Jehovah God as he was walking in the garden about the breezy part of the day, and the man and his wife hid from the face of Jehovah God among the trees of the garden.

[@c19commander44]

@@timothylawson1151 -Genesis 3:8 GOD literally walks and talks with adam and eve. adam and eve heard the voice of GOD calling them. nothing of giving the idea that its a voice there .

[@MrMarktrumble]

Arche is found in Greek philosophy as well, and the old testament was written in Hebrew originally, not Greek. Tracing the origins and the meaning of logos should start in its native Greek use, and that meaning should take priority over the use in the Septuagint.

[@MrMarktrumble]

Very good lecture. Thank you.

[@shanthivlogs-A-Z]

Sir please do a video on colossians 1:15 ( image,first born )

[@HISTORIA-VERIFICADA]

the beginning: In the Scriptures, the meaning of the term “beginning” depends on the context. Here the Greek word ar·khe cannot refer to “the beginning” of God the Creator, for he is eternal, having no beginning. (Ps 90:2) It must, therefore, refer to the time when God be- gan creating. God’s first creation was termed the Word, a heavenly designa- tion of the one who became Jesus. (Joh 1:14-17) So Jesus is the only one who can rightly be called “the firstborn of all creation.” (Col 1:15) He was “the begin- ning of the creation by God” (Re 3:14), so he existed before other spirit creatures and the physical universe were created. In fact, by means of Jesus, “all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth.”-Col 1:16; for other exam- ples of how the term “beginning” is used, see study note on Joh 6:64. the Word: Or “the Logos.” Greek, ho logos. Here used as a title, it is also used at Joh 1:14 and Re 19:13. John identified the one to whom this title belongs, name- ly, Jesus. This title was applied to Jesus during his prehuman existence as a spir- it creature, during his ministry on earth as a perfect man, and after his exaltation to heaven. Jesus was God’s Word of com- munication, or Spokesman, for conveying information and instructions to the Cre- ator’s other spirit sons and to humans. So it is reasonable to think that prior to Jesus’ coming to earth, Jehovah on many occasions communicated with mankind through the Word, His angelic mouth- piece.-Ge 16:7-11; 22:11; 31:11; Ex 3:2-5; Jg 2:1-4; 6:11, 12; 13:3. with: Lit., “toward.” In this context, the Greek preposition pros implies close prox- imity and fellowship. It also indicates separate persons, in this case, the Word and the only true God. the Word was a god: Or “the Word was divine [or, “a godlike one”].” This state- ment by John describes a quality or characteristic of “the Word” (Greek, ho logos; see study note on the Word in this verse), that is, Jesus Christ. The Word’s preeminent position as the firstborn Son of God through whom God created all other things is a basis for describing him as “a god; a godlike one; divine; a divine being.” Many translators favor the ren- dering “the Word was God,” equating him with God Almighty. However, there are good reasons for saying that John did not mean that “the Word” was the same as Almighty God. First, the preceding clause and the following clause both clearly state that “the Word” was “with God.” Also, the Greek word the·os occurs three times in verses 1 and 2. In the first and third occurrences, the·os is preceded by the definite article in Greek; in the second occurrence, there is no article. Many scholars agree that the absence of the definite article before the second the·os is significant. When the article is used in this context, the·os refers to God Almighty. On the other hand, the absence of the article in this grammati- cal construction makes the·os qualitative in meaning and describes a characteristic of “the Word.” Therefore, a number of Bi- ble translations in English, French, and German render the text in a way similar to the New World Translation, conveying the idea that “the Word” was “a god; divine; a divine being; of divine kind; godlike.” Supporting this view, ancient translations of John’s Gospel into the Sahidic and the Bohairic dialects of the Coptic lan- guage, probably produced in the third and fourth centuries C.E., handle the first occurrence of the·os at Joh 1:1 differently from the second occurrence. These ren- derings highlight a quality of “the Word,” that his nature was like that of God, but they do not equate him with his Father, the almighty God. In harmony with this verse, Col 2:9 describes Christ as having “all the fullness of the divine quality.” And according to 2Pe 1:4, even Christ’s joint heirs would “become sharers in divine na- ture.” Additionally, in the Septuagint translation, the Greek word the·os is the usual equivalent of the Hebrew words ren- dered “God,” el and elo·him, which are thought to convey the basic meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” These Hebrew words are used with reference to the al- mighty God, other gods, and humans😊

[@timothylawson1151]

I’m a JW with an advanced skill in reading biblical Greek (Yes there is such a thing as biblical Greek but not a Holy Ghost Greek. Go to the b-greek forum for a discussion on this if you like.) One point I’d like to make is that λογος in clauses a and b is clearly the subject and so there would be little question about what the subject is in clause c. So the anarthrous θεός is not dependent on being unarticulated so as make clear that λογος is the subject. However, anarthrous nouns can be definite without the article and if that is so in J1:1c then it is semantically a convertible proposition and so Sabellianism. That’s why Daniel Wallace prefers to see it as qualitative (divine). I believe this is what Dr White is also saying when he says that clause c is predicating WHAT the λογος is and not WHO. If you read Wallace’s GGBB you’ll find that he recognizes that an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative can be used to describe a class…that is to say the rendering ‘a god’ is grammatically possible. But his objection is that leads to polytheism…so it’s a theological objection not a grammatical one. However, it isn’t polytheism but monolatry. There are other god’s but no other god is Yhwh. Or as Dr Michael Heiser has said Yhwh is species unique. See the Bible Project site for a fine discussion on this. I first learned in discussion with Dr Rob Bowman that he sees John as being purposefully paradoxical in saying that the Word was with God and was God. Ok! I can see that as possible! But if that’s the case then Trinitarians should recognize that their view is not logically defensible. They should recognize that and leave it there. The argument should be only that this is understanding that the text is leading to even though it is illogical. My belief however is that John was weighing in on the Two Powers in Heaven debate of the time and was writing to be understood.

[@Gottespunk]

That seems like a confluence of implausible possibilities. Utilizing Heiser is the funniest part. Grasping for straws. Verse 1 should not be taken in isolation, and contextual arguments should not be dismissed as mere theological arguments. Another issue is that the JW understanding of this passage does not give a good account for John 1:3 of the same passage. If Jesus was a created being as JW's assert, then he is within the group of "all [created] things" in verse 3. If the JW's were right about verse 1, then when verse 3 shows that Jesus created all created things, how could he then create himself prior to his existence? It leads to an illogical result. JW's have referred to their NWT additions in Colossians 1:16-17 in response, which is another example demonstrating JW theological motivations in "translation" of the NWT. The only attempt at an argument I was presented in support of their adding the word [other] to Colossians 1 four times is when one JW referred to an article by a Unitarian college professor of History (not of Linguistics or Greek). In the article, his basis for agreeing with the NWT's additions was that in Colossians 1:15 he thought that the 'of' in "firstborn of creation" could only be a partitive genitive (with Jesus as part of creation). That Unitarian professor of History as a non-linguist did not seem to be aware of the existence of the genitive of subordination, which is clearly recognized from the context by the bible translators who translated it as "firstborn over creation". It's as if the Unitarian would say that "God of earth" could only refer to a God made of dirt and rocks, while ignoring the genitive of subordination( i.e. God in dominion over earth). The origin of JW distinctives like Arianism, pamphlets, and false prophecies can be seen in their connection to the Millerites, Joshua Himes, adventism, etc. here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmKZpZaerZt_ptE

[@timothylawson1151]

Gottespunk, as I mentioned in other comments the Word’s existence “outside of time” is dependent on αρχή necessarily being the absolute beginning of everything. The LXX version of Job 38:7 is of interest in this regard: ὅτε ἐγενήθησαν ἄστρα, ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί μου. (Job 38:7 LXX1) When the stars were born, all my angels praised me with a loud voice. (Job 38:7 NETS) What can be discerned is that the translators of the LXX were not theologically bound to the idea that heavens of Genesis 1:1 necessarily included the angels. So the beginning would be the beginning of the cosmos, what we would call the universe. That being the case then the Word could have been the earliest of God’s creation. Therefore, drawing a creation-creator line is not fatal to the JW reading of the text since the choice need not be a binary one but include an excluded middle choice, namely that the Word was created before the beginning (αρχή) of the creation of the cosmos. Also the use of the preposition διά indicates that God used the Word as an agent of creation so that the Word is the efficient cause but not the ultimate cause, he’s not the source of creation. If the Word was God then why use διά which implies an agent? If the Word was God and John wanted to make clear that the Word was the source of all things then the preposition εκ would have been used and the text would have read πάντα εκ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. As to Col 1:15-16 you are correct that a genitive of subordination (a category that I believe Daniel Wallace invented) is a possibility. But it would depend on one’s understanding of προτότοκος being restricted to signifying only preeminence of position and not temporal preeminence. As to πας (all) as being used absolutely at Col 1:15 it too is dependent on the meaning of προτότοκος. I’m sure you are aware that all can have both an absolute sense and a relative sense.

[@Gottespunk]

​@@timothylawson1151 Relying upon a translation of the LXX is just another grasping at straws. Remember that the Hebrew text describes the stars as singing rather than as being born as the NETS puts it (the NETS is a translation of a translation). But it's notable that the term ὅτε which means "after" or "during" is effectively distorted by you to mean "before". For if God had created angels as beings who sang while they were brought forth, just as the stars may have shined as they were brought forth(if they were brought forth in maturity), Then there is no indication that angels existed prior to stars in that NETS translation of the LXX translation. So I would not say that your assessment of the LXX translators could be discerned from that text. διά would only be a problem for a modalist. εκ in that passage would have resulted in modalism. For a trinitarian, διά makes perfect sense because Jesus is not the only person of the trinity involved in creation. The father is called the creator in Ephesians 3:9 and the Spirit was active at creation in Genesis 1:2 (side note for JW's: Acts 13:2 demonstrates that the Holy Spirit himself refers to himself as "I" and "me", referring to himself as a person and not a mere action of God.). The one God is the source of creation, and that involves all three persons who are the one God. Compare Revelation 1:8 (where the Alpha and Omega is described as the almighty), with Revelation 1:11-18 (Where the Alpha and Omega is described as the one who lives, was dead, and is alive forevermore). When did the almighty die? You have yet to address the second half of John 1:3. "and without him was not any thing made that was made." So following from the position of JW's who believe that Jesus was made, the second half of verse 3 says that Jesus was not made without Jesus making Jesus? (i.e. "Without Jesus as the agent who makes, was not any Jesus made that was made.") If I assume that Jesus is something that could be made, it sounds like the second part of verse 3 is saying that Jesus was not made at all. It's clear that the LXX uses προτότοκος of Ephraim in Jeremiah 31:9 even though Genesis 41:52 shows Ephraim was born temporally second. Ephraim established that being temporally first doesn't necessarily achieve status/honor. The context in Colossians shows προτότοκος again referring to position of preeminence in verse 15 when recognizing the 'purposes' of creation that follow. All things were created for Jesus (verse 16). Things are a certain way for his preeminence (verse 18), Because it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell in Jesus(verse 19). The purpose of creation seems to be the establishment of the status and position of Jesus over it as creator, for his own preeminence and glory. What would be the point of emphasizing here that Jesus is the temporally first creature if first-ness and creature-ness doesn't necessarily produce status and position?

[@timothylawson1151]

@@Gottespunk ὅτε is a temporal particle marking a point of time that coincides with another point of time and primarily means when. Since the context of Job 38 is the event of God creating the earth it follows that when he does this and the morning stars (angels) see him do this and praise him that they must have been on hand to see it and thus they are existing before the earth. Your suggestion that they are brought forth singing praises to God for his creating of the earth is strained to say the least. The scriptures often adduced as proof that πρωτότοκος can be used to signal preeminence are used figuratively. This is not the case at Colossians 1:15. Certainly you don’t deny that πρωτότοκος literally means firstborn with temporal primacy in view. As to διά being used to avoid Modalism you are setting yourself up for problems with other scriptures that Trinitarians use to equate Jesus with Jehovah. For example it is often said that only God can forgive sins. So if acts such as forgiving sins or creating identify both persons as God and amounts to Modalism then your view of the Trinity is in trouble. What is Modalism is reading the preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative θεός at J1:1c as definite. For this reason Wallace opts for a qualitative reading.

[@Gottespunk]

@@timothylawson1151 My suggestion was not representative of my view of the passage. I'm only poking at the holes in your presentation. Where does it say that the angels saw anything in Job 38:7? (I mean without using eisegesis.) And if we assume the angels saw some of the results of creation prompting their praise, where does it say that they had to be there before the process of creation in order to appreciate the results of it in that verse? These questions have to do with examining your exegetical method rather than putting forth my understanding of the passage. Ultimately Job 38:7 doesn't do the the work you need it to for your claim that angels are somehow seen as existing prior to officially stated creation. The "when" in Job 38:7 refers to the laying of the cornerstone of 'earth' in 38:6. The creation of earth is subsequent to the creation of heaven in Genesis 1:1. So even if the angels saw some of the creation, there is no conflict with the idea that 'angels were part of the creation of heaven' seen in what was done by the translators of the LXX. I don't think it's likely that the angels were praising the creation process, or praising the creation that they saw, but rather their praise would more likely be focused upon God because they recognize that only God is worthy of worship. It seems plausible that they would praise God for his holiness while ignoring the magnificence of creation due to the glory of God surpassing it. You are wrong about Colossians 1:15. πρωτότοκος doesn't need to be considered figurative to mean preeminence. It is rather a form of extension which falls within the semantic domain of the term. I do not doubt JW's would attempt to make problems for the trinity(which can forgive sins), problems which only JW's would recognize, alleged problems from anything they can stretch. I have about 75 translations in my bible software, and the NWT doesn't match any of them. I have noticed that most JW's I've encountered think of modalism when they hear the word 'trinity'. This may be why they argue that trinitarians need to find modalist readings to prove trinitarianism. But when I recognize non-modalist readings as trinitarian, I am typically presented more alleged problems from JW's consisting of more conflation of modalism with trinitarianism. If you are correct about Wallace, he would seem to act charitably to the text, to avoid contradictions without changing the text, whereas JW's would add words to the text to force their dogma and not mind that it results in problems such as Jesus creating Jesus in John 1:3. However Dr. White seems correct in pointing out that the use of articles in Greek has much more richness and depth than first seems apparent.

[@JonnyDoe-k1k]

11:00 Are you sure it tells you he is eternal? All the sons of God were there in the beginning of Joh1:1, and Gen1:1. We know this as they shout for joy and applaud as God and the Word create all things. YHWH discussed this with Job remember? He even asked, "where were you when this happened? When I made the physical creation and ALL the sons of God sang together and shouted for joy?" Job38. I think possibly, you added in "we know from this he is eternal" because you really want it to say that. No offense, just an observation.

[@woodford3786]

From Job 38 we know that all the sons of God began shouting in applause at the founding of the earth. The same chapter also suggests the earth has a literal foundation, so perhaps it's best to not take it too literally. But let's do it anyway. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens (first) and the earth (second)." Why is Job 38 a problem? Have you not read John 1:3? "All the sons of God" referenced in Job 38 came into existence through the Word and the Word is the one who laid the foundation of the earth in Job 38. See Hebrews 1:10-12.

[@JonnyDoe-k1k]

@woodford3786 Gen1 describes the creation of the physical "heavens and earth". This physical creation was witnessed by all the angels as it took place. Heb1:2 tells us God made the worlds/universe through his Son. Gen1 describes this event. It says nothing of the Son/ Word being eternal. It says, in the beginning ( of? ... the chapter clearly shows, the beginning of physical creation), the Word was there. So were all the angels. It doesn't say "the Word is eternal".

[@woodford3786]

​@@JonnyDoe-k1k"Gen1 describes the creation of the physical "heavens and earth" " Do you have any support for that assertion? According to Strongs: "The Hebrew word "shamayim" primarily refers to the heavens or the sky. It is used in the Bible to describe the physical expanse above the earth, including the atmosphere and outer space. Additionally, "shamayim" is often used to denote the dwelling place of God, the spiritual realm where God resides, and where His throne is established. It can also refer to the abode of celestial beings and the place of eternal reward for the righteous."

[@c19commander44]

Thanks DR White.great class.

[@KMGAthletics]

Awesome

[@theservantsresource3565]

Awesome too!

[@anthonyaspe8499]

How many being God in John 1:1?

[@SlingOfDavid9000]

destruction of john 1:1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGTOi3qLjqt1r6c

[@DavidDrew-n6z]

The word “ eternal “ is not in this verse . He is reading into and adding an idea not herein given.

[@mouriermarie-helene3510]

Jesus Christ is God ! AMEN !

[@jazzbassf]

Jesus is the Son of God, not "god the Son"

[@j.nelson2811]

This passage does not teach that Jesus was with God and that he was God. That’s an interpretation that the Greek grammar alone cannot prove. The view most consistent with other scriptures is that the logos here is a personification of the word of God or the word of the Lord as seen throughout scriptures hundreds of times. If Jesus is truly the word of God then why doesn’t any translation capitalize “word” everywhere else apart from here and Rev. 19? For example Heb 4:12 says “the word of God is living and active” is this a reference to Jesus since he’s the word of God?

[@c19commander44]

WORD is just another name for JESUS. we see in Revelation how again JESUS is called by the name "WORD"

[@j.nelson2811]

@@c19commander44 Rev 19:13 says “...his name is called the Word of God” not just word and like I mentioned before, the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” appears hundreds of times in all the Bible so why is it only capitalized here? Aren’t all the other verses a reference to Jesus as well? for example Psalms 33:6 “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made”

[@c19commander44]

I just listened to a Greek and Hebrew Scholar today explain and teach John 1:1 and it is far,way far and complicated than you just explained. and He had the Greek verse of John 1:1 right there. for your information there are ancient manuscripts of John 1:1 exactly as how john wrote it. and nothing has changed. THE WORD WAS WITH GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD. I bet you would never give a BIOLOGY class on human anatomy ,why ? because you are not qualified to do it. that is exactly what people like you try to do with when you start saying that the Greek dont agree.that the definite article this and that. you are doing Exegisis /critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible. and for that you need to bring the hebrew ancient manuscript and show how its wrong and why.something that you cant do. and what you say dont come close to his teaching of the Scholar. In Revelation John makes it clear , Revelation 19:13. He(JESUS) is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His(JESUS) name is The Word of God. that verse is Clear. your capital letters explanation is baseless. Every bible chapter or verse will make it clear as to the WORD mentioned. of whom it is talking. you cant say that just because everywhere where the word is mentioned then it means this or that. that is not the way the BIBLE is explained.

[@j.nelson2811]

@@c19commander44 I think you misunderstood what I said about the Greek. I never said the Greek text was wrong nor did I say anything about definite articles or ancient manuscripts either. I said the Greek grammar alone does not prove his interpretation. I agree with the translation “the word was with God and the word was God” but I don’t agree with his Interpretation of it. You can find scholars who disagree with each other in every bible verse and doctrine. Scholars, just like everyone one of us, already have presuppositions and their scholarship reflects that. Just like most scientists never question evolution and they interpret the evidence with their presupposition, scholars do the same with the Bible. They already believe Jesus is God and interpret everything that way. The Bible was written for the average person not scholars so if you just use simple reasoning you’ll see that if Jesus was with God and he was also God then he was either with himself or with another God. There’s nothing here about 2 or 3 divine persons who all share the same being of God. Actually, you won’t find that anywhere in scriptures! This is just man’s false teachings that came hundreds of years after Christ. I know I have the same God as Jesus did since his God was the Father (John 20:17, Rom 15:6, 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31, Eph 1:3; 1:17, Col 1:3, 1 Pet 1:3) but for trinitarians God is the Father, Son and HS which means trinitarians have 2 more Gods than Jesus did. I truly hope you will meditate on this. Are you really prepared to say that your God is not the same God Jesus prayed to and obeyed? The God who sent him and raised him from the dead? The God that Jesus will subject to when all things have been subject to him by God (1 Cor. 15:27)? I don’t care what any so called scholar believes, I stick to what the scriptures plainly teach, that there’s only one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and I pray you would believe the same.

[@philotheoapolobrendon3653]

@@j.nelson2811 In John 1:14 the Word became flesh so its not just the words of God. The Logos here is personal "and dwelled among us." John continues to identify Jesus as the eternal Word who became flesh. This is where the eternal Son added a human nature and humbled Himself (Philippians 2:5-8 ). During earthly sojourn Christ humbled himself, taking on role of servant. As a man he submitted to the Father but Father was greater only in position, role or rank (function) but not nature(essence). He then returned to the Father where He was with Him from eternity past (Is 42:8/John 17:5). In Isaiah 6:1-5 Isaiah saw Yahweh on the throne which we find from John 12:41-43 what the vision was the eternal pre-incarnate Son. All 3 persons in the single being are not the same person. That would be modalism. They talk to each other and send each other. The Father initiates salvation, the Son achieves salvation, the Holy Spirit employs salvation. All 3 persons in the single being are involved in salvation (and creation). (In the Old Testament the Father has never been seen (John 1:18, 5:37, Jn. 6:46, 1 Tim.6:15-16) but in Ex 6:2-3 - God says He used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty. God appeared to Abraham when Abraham was 99 years old (Gen 17:1), Ex 24:9-11 and again in other texts. Moses wrote Exodus and Jesus confirms Moses was writing about the Son. John 5:46 - "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me." You could get stoned for blasphemy claiming you were God John 8:58-59: “Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” They tried to stone Him because the claim of "I AM" was obvious to any first century Jew. Jesus was the person who is not the Father who has been seen. The Trinity is found in many places. There is one, and only one, God (1 Timothy 2:5). The person of the Father is God (2 Peter 1:17). The person of the Son is God (Titus 2:13, John 1:1). The person of the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct and simultaneously distinguishable persons (Luke 3:22). The three persons (Father or God; and Son or Christ or Lord; and Holy Spirit or Spirit) are frequently listed together in a triadic pattern of unity and equality (John 14:26 & John 14:16). Only God is the Savior Isaiah 43:11 states ..." I am the Lord and apart from me there is no savior" Titus 2:13 “For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ….., while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good”. Trinity is a solution to all the texts and context. All other explanations are deficient.

[@timothylawson1151]

I’ll add too that a problem with the imperfect stative be verb (ην) can imply change which Parmenides and Plato point out and make anathema. What that means for John’s use of it in the prologue is that if he is identifying the Word as God then God in the form of the Word was no longer God when Jesus left his presence and became a man. See the entry in BDAG for ειμι. Here’s the part that I have in mind: “…on the pres. εἰμί cp. Parmenides 8, 5: of the Eternal we cannot say ἦν οὐδ̓ ἔσται, only ἔστιν; Ammonius Hermiae [Comm. in Aristotl. IV 5 ed. ABusse 1897] 6 p. 172: in Timaeus we read that we must not say of the gods τὸ ἦν η τὸ ἔσται μεταβολῆς τινος ὄντα σημαντικά, μόνον δὲ τὸ ἔστι=‘was’ or ‘will be’, suggesting change, but only ‘is’;…”.

[@joshuasmith4230]

Can you explain this a bit more?

[@normanmcdermid1951]

Why have they translated ''logos'' as ''word'', when the word logos actually means ''a thought''.

[@theservantsresource3565]

I just know all the KZbin Unitarians are going to flock here with their typical scripture twisting, and attempts to drown out reasonable discourae.

[@lbee8247]

You are right. As I scroll through the comments just found one called nothing new under the sun. Smh. You called it.

[@c19commander44]

I did scroll also to check. and i found about 2 so far who came with the same old arguments. biblical uniterians and watch tower witness sound like the same thing. one cant tell the difference between them.

[@theservantsresource3565]

@@c19commander44 The more I read the scriptures, the more I find reasons to avoid unitarianism.

[@c19commander44]

@@theservantsresource3565 -Who are those Nuts ?

[@theservantsresource3565]

@@c19commander44 Debating with them is quite a challenge, actually. Not because they have any good arguments, but because they have a tendency to shift the conversation into irrelevant areas in order to avoid addressing issues. And because of the challenge, I’ve started studying the Trinity more in-depth, searching the scriptures for the relevant passages. i’ve gone through 2/3 of the Bible, OT and NT, highlighting everything that is remotely related to the Trinity, and what I’ve discovered, is that whenever God’s essence is revealed in the OT, there is Christ. This is why Jesus told the religious leaders that the Scriptures are about him. They are the builders, and he’s the Chief Corner Stone they stumbled over and rejected, because they wanted to make God in their own image. I’m also reading several books on the Trinity, including Dr. White’s The Forgotten Trinity. Dr. White begins his book with the Sh’ma Yisrael, “Hear O israel, The LORD YHWH, the LORD is One,” which Unitarians would find strange; thinking that Trinitarians avoid such passages. But the reality is, the understanding that God is One, and there’s none besides Him, is the beginning point to understand the Trinity.

[@fromdarktothelight9788]

The problem is that there are arguments that the indefinite article could be there as well. And the Coptic language has the ability to put it there or not and the Sahidic Coptic version from about 600 AD has it. It says "a deity" or "divine" which makes a distinction between the Word being divine and "ton theon" "The Divine" Which does seem to fit into the context better when you fit all the pieces together. And yes Jesus said I and the Father are one, true statement. John wrote a handful of chapters later that Jesus prayed for the Church to be one with him and one with the Father in the same way they are one, in union with each other so on and so forth. Paul wrote AFTER Jesus was back in heaven...NOT WHEN HE WAS ON EARTH, for the people who lived afterwards for them to understand, that the head of Christ is God. So then how does it fit together? Jesus is the Temple. In the same way the Spirit entered the temple, The Father's Spirit is with the Son. The Son being the only way to see the Father, and if you see the Son you see the Father because he is with him. And with that understanding Justin Martyr's arguments make a lot of sense and everything Jesus said makes a lot of sense and everything Paul said makes a lot of sense. It doesn't sound like a mystery that can't be understood. It sounds like it makes perfect sense. I think where Jehovah's Witnesses get it wrong is that it was the Son through the OT. Again that is the only way to see the Father. And the Son was the one that explained him to man. (John 1:18) I think the problem is that we took the capitalized term "God" and used it as a name which is fitting more with a modern version of the term "El" instead of Theon. When Theon is more like divine or deity. But that is not saying the Son is a separate deity. He is the only way to the Father as the Father's Spirit is with him. And it was the Son who all things were made through. He is the Lord to the glory of the Father. And deserves to be called so. As there is no other way to the Father. There is no one else. It is only through him that men can gain access to God. He is the mediator between God and man. And he is the Temple. And he serves the will of the Father. And the Father is greater than he is. And the Father is the head of Christ. And if you see the Son you see the Father. And there is no other way to see the Father. And God stood with Abraham and YHWH called down fire from YHWH in the heavens as the Spirit is with the Son, the Son being the one standing with Abraham, and Jacob saw El face to face and lived even though that is impossible because he saw the Son who is El. The one that made all things, the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end, the Aleph and the Tav, who is written in the beginning. It was always the Son speaking to man on behalf of The Divine, and the Word is divine. That makes a lot of sense to me, and everything seems to fit together. And then all of a sudden the Subordination belief in the early Church starts making sense. And even the person who wrote the literal Church History, Eusebius, believed in Subordination. And it continued until Pope Ursicinus was kicked out, well actually continued beyond that but without real power. I think it's very likely that the writing of history fell to the ones who took over and called them Arians instead of what they were, Christians who believed in Subordination. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." -1 Corinthians 8:6

[@toddcote4904]

So to be clear, Jesus is "a god" not the "God". Is that what you're arguing for? Which would mean you believe in multiple gods? Is the Father God different than the Holy Spirit God who resided in the "temple" of Christ? Same being, same person, or same being, but different person, or different beings? Thanks

[@fromdarktothelight9788]

@@toddcote4904 You didn't read a thing I wrote if that is your opening question. And Justin Martyr made it clear that the Father and Son are numerically separate. And he said the son serves the will of the Father. He ministers to him. He serves him. That is what Justin Martyr said. Again, this is after Jesus death when he is in heaven that he said this. Actually he was explaining when the Son was coming to talk to men as El, that the Son was serving the Father. If you are wondering if I believe they are of the same substance, he said as fire begets fire. So I would say if you light a candle from a larger fire you could say that the fire was begotten from the larger fire and yet the same substance in a separate place. And yet numerically separate and not automatically of the same size or intensity, or automatically equal. And in this case I believe the Son serves the will of the Father. I believe they are in union through the Spirit. The Son is a Temple. The Father's Spirit is with the Son.

[@fromdarktothelight9788]

@@toddcote4904 Here is a question for you, what does it mean when it says, No one knows the Father but the Son? What about the Spirit, does the Spirit know the Father as well as the Son?

[@vulpesinculta6647]

From Dark to the Light 1 Corinthians 2:10 states that the Spirit “searches all things, even the depths of God.” So that should answer your question as to whether the Spirit knows The Father and The Son. You also have to remember, it’s dangerous to argue from a point of silence. Just because Jesus doesn’t mention the Spirit right then and there, doesn’t mean the Spirit doesn’t know the things of God The Father. The Spirit isn’t more fully revealed until the promise of the Holy Spirit to the disciples, and then the actual indwelling at Pentecost. God reveals himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the scriptures unfold, not only in a single verse. John 1:1 in a nutshell is saying that the Son is eternal, always in existence since the beginning. He is in relationship with God (The Father) and as to his very nature, (meaning what he is), he is God. Jesus is not the person of The Father, he is of the same essence. What The Father is, Jesus is as well. But they are not the same person. And yes, all members of the Trinity have different roles in the accomplishment of man’s redemption. It doesn’t mean one is better than the other by nature. The father is the head of the trinity, the Son submits to him, but that in no way means one is inferior by nature to the other. Difference in role and function does not mean inferiority. An example could be a manager of a restaurant. The manager is the head, he delegates other workers for the main purpose of running a restaurant, but he in no way is worth more than the other workers by human nature, just the way the workers aren’t any less human than the manager. It’s simply different roles that are taken to accomplish a specific goal.

[@fromdarktothelight9788]

@@vulpesinculta6647 You are giving your opinion about what John 1:1 says. But the Sahidic Coptic version does not agree. It's a language capable of telling us what it actually says with indefinite and definite articles. And it fits better with the rest of the scriptures. I don't think it does reveal what you claim it does. And then you finish with another opinion. Making broad wild claims about the having different roles as a Trinity that are just wild speculation.

[@lior38]

Please more videos like this! That's really helpful

[@victorsjacob]

Amazing Explanation ... I am really Blessed and well understood the nature of God...

[@naakaiidinee]

If there is a Theon and a Theos where is the third god or what is the third god called. Because Jesus says the word I speak is not mine it’s my father’s who sent me. And he also says you don’t believe in me but the father who sent me. Hmmm think about it.

[@Kurt2222]

Jesus became human to lead by example for other humans in the designed God-to-man relationship, so some things He said were precisely for the example for man to follow after. Other places He made it clear He was God. John 20:28 Thomas called Him God and Jesus did not refute Thomas for saying that. If Thomas was mistaken, Christ being perfect would have corrected him. In Revelation Jesus says He is the first and the last just as God said in the old testament.

[@SlingOfDavid9000]

destruction of john 1:1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGTOi3qLjqt1r6c

[@Scott-t2p]

@@Kurt2222 my Lord (Jesus) and my God (the Father) White does not know Greek it is a script

[@Kurt2222]

@@Scott-t2p Jesus is called "The Word of God" in the old testament He is sometimes called "The Messenger of God/ The Angel of Jehovah " but is clearly also referred to as God. Exodus 3 when Moses goes to the burning bush, or Abraham, or Jacob, they all had encountered God but it was Christ before He became a human. God says He has a soul, He obviously has His Holy Spirit, and Christ (The Word) is the direct expression of God, whether in speaking the universe into existence, or becoming flesh and showing us how to live and think. 1 Thess 5:23 mankind is also a 3 part being, body, soul and spirit. God said He made mankind like Himself, 3 parts that make a whole. 1 Corinthians 12 speaks of many parts of one body (the church) so the concept is carried through the entire Bible. God has 3 parts just as man has 3 parts. This fact is indisputable based on the evidence.

[@oweltingzon4470]

​@@Kurt2222a few verses earlier before he shows himself to Thomas, Jesus told Mary Magdalene that he has yet to ascend to 'His father...and to His God'...now did Jesus meant to contradict himself with what he previously told Mary Magdalene in verse 17 of John 20? When he didnt rebuke Thomas for saying "the Lord of me and the God of me!" in verse 28 of John 20 did he intended to contradict himself?

[@binren3984]

Thanks Dr. White! Please more Greek ! 😁

[@scripturaltruth7636]

How do you get around the ἦν Greek meaning ? G2258 ἦν ēn Thayer Definition: 1) I was, etc. Part of Speech: verb A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: imperfect of G1510 The "ἦν" literally means "I was"

[@aadschram5877]

James, it is in the greek!

[@gigoj3536]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Almighty Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the Word was the Almighty Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....God = 3 Person in one being. The Word did exist in the past and prove is in Genesis 1:26_ And the Almighty Father said, '(Let us) make man in...' . 'Let us' is plural.

[@c19commander44]

what ? ?????????? GOD and JESUS are the same entity/being ? thats not what the verse is saying. it make it clear that GOD and JESUS are not the same person/being/entity

[@billyr9162]

@@c19commander44 The word became flesh. That's Jesus.

[@c19commander44]

@@billyr9162 the WORD(JESUS)took Human Form.

[@billyr9162]

@@c19commander44 The Bible says sarx logos ginomai

[@randallwittman2720]

Let us make man in our image. AND ..HE.. CREATED THEM MALE AND FEMALE. USING THE TERM ...LET US... IS AN EXCEPTABLE LITERIARY METHOD OF A SUPERIOR PERSONALITY TO INCLUDE A SUBORDANT INTO THE CONVERSATION. IE. THE TEACHER SAYS ...LET US FIND OUR SEATS.. IS DIRECTING THE CLASS TO BE SEATED,, WHILE THE TEACHER REMAINS STANDING.. IE A JUDGE ENTERS THE COURT ROOM ,, LET US STAND.. BUT REFERS TO COURT ROOM AUDIENCE, NOT THE JUDGE ETC.

[@Doeyhead]

After spending a few classes in Koine greek, I am pretty convinced that "a god" is simply the least biased translation.

[@tmcge3325]

I think it is important to understand, all scripture origin is Hebrew.....not one Hebrew would write Holy Scripture "The Word of God" in a Gentile Language. We know, the Torah, Tanakh, Psalms and Proverbs all in Hebrew, they studied, read the Holy Bible daily, they memorized it and remember, the Lord came but only for the Lost Sheep of Israel. When Paul spoke to Israel, he spoke Hebrew....when the Lord spoke to Paul, he spoke Hebrew. Their names are all Hebrew names! By the word of Nehemiah, it would be a sin not to speak Hebrew....Hebrew is the Language of their Fathers! So, the Hebrew bible was translated into Greek, Aramaic, Latin and many other languages including English. Example: Matthew 27:47 Why did he and others hear this? Answer: Because in Hebrew Mark 15:34/Matthew 27:46 sounds similar to Elijah but the Lord called on the God....Ref - Nehemiah Gordon Clips (youtube channel) "Jesus Spoke Hebrew" Next Acts 21:40 and 22:2 and Acts 26:14 Read Nehemiah 13:23-24 kjv.

[@christianityisunstoppable4155]

How important is pronunciation ?

[@SlingOfDavid9000]

destruction of john 1:1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGTOi3qLjqt1r6c

[@timothylawson1151]

As to the meaning of αρχη (translated as the beginning even though it is anarthrous) I can agree that it is a reference to the beginning of Genesis 1:1. That being the case it would be dependent on what was meant by beginning. Did it indicate that God was creating the cosmos from nothing or was God using the materials he had already created to form the heavens and the earth? The heavens here do not necessarily mean God’s dwelling place or even the angels (son’s of God). Obviously God’s dwelling place already existed and was eternal. The opening phrase in Hebrew of Genesis is problematic because reshit (beginning) is anarthrous. Some would translate it as “when God began creating” (bara isn’t limited to creating out of nothing). The Neophiti Targum seems to resolve this as seeing reshit as the name for the Wisdom figure and so renders it “In the beginning with Wisdom (b’reshit) God created..” It seems to me that John is drawing from this tradition in his prologue. So the beginning of both Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 are not necessarily the beginning of God’s creative acts and so the son could still have been the absolute beginning of God’s creative acts (Prov 8:22,23).

[@xxdarkwolf20xx60]

This would be a good argument if it weren’t for the fact that the word created everything. Without the word nothing that has been made would have been made. In Colossians it says similar that Jesus created everything. Jesus could not have created himself. And Jesus declared that he is. Before abraham was I am. Along with the word already being there with no defined point of creation your argument just can’t stand

[@Scott-t2p]

@@xxdarkwolf20xx60 "things" inserted not in the Greek

[@butch5511]

I don't see how your explanation proves the Logos is eternal.

[@courtlandmcmullen6118]

Why isn’t pros ton Theon translated “to/toward God”?

[@Bowen12676]

I'm not a Greek expert by any means, but my understanding is that it has something to do with the fact that the verb "was" (Greek: ēn) is stative. When Greeks used _pros_ to mean "to" or "toward", it was when it followed a dynamic verb (such as "went" or "was going" or "spoke" or the like).

[@courtlandmcmullen6118]

@@Bowen12676 Thank you for the response. I do get what you’re saying about pros following an action verb rather than a being verb, but I still don’t see the necessity of translating as “with” unless it’s like someone who says they’re PROlife meaning they are “with” the life movement. (Not in proximity, but in cooperation, or mutual aim).

[@ramilsarmiento5534]

John 1:1 In the beginning was MICHAEL , and MICHAEL was with God, and MICAHEL IS AN ANGEL. IN THE BEGINNING WAS JESUS, AND JESUS WAS WITH GOD, AND JESUS WAS AN ANGEL. Rev 10:1 And I saw another MIGHTY ANGEL come down from heaven, CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, HAVING GREAT POWER; and the earth was lightened with HIS GLORY. Rev. 10:1 QUESTION: Who is the MIGHTY ANGEL coming down from heaven CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD ? Rev. 18:1 QUESTION; Who is the angel coming down from heaven HAVING GREAT POWER AND GLORY ? ANSWER: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY. 1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of THE ARCHANGEL, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Question you should answer: Why is Jesus has the voice of the ARCHANGEL ? ANSWER: JESUS IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL VERY SIMPLE !!!!!!! SIMPLE TRUTH CAN NOT BE GRASPED OR UNDERSTOOD FOR THOSE SATAN INSPIRED ...

[@johngreene8332]

You have John 1:1 wrong. John 1:1 reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. There is no mention of angels or Michael in the original Greek text or in the above quote. Revelation 10:1 does not say that this is Michael one of the archangels. No identification of the mighty angel is given. Moreover, Jesus is never called an angel in the New Testament. Revelation 18:1 reads "After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illuminated with his glory." This angel is unidentified. Trying to tie this to Matthew 24:30 doesn't work. 1 Thess. 4:16--it does not say Jesus is speaking with the voice of an archangel. An archangel is accompanying Him. By the way the archangel is never named. According to Daniel 10:13 ("Michael, one of the chief princes") there are more than one archangel. Actually, what this text is following is the Jewish wedding custom when after preparing a place for his bride, the bridegroom goes to get his bride to bring her back to the place he built for them at his father's house. Also, the bride had no idea when he was going to return for her. As this procession approached her house one of those accompanying the bridegroom would shout and another would sound a trumpet. Jesus is not a created being but God as the Scripture shows: Heb. 1:5-8: For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You"? And again, "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let ALL the angels of God worship Him." And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire." But to the Son, He says: "Your throne O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom." Only God is to be worshipped (Matt. 4:10) so the angels worshipping Jesus proves He is God. Also, the above flatly states the Son is God--"your throne O God". John 20:27-28: Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving but believing." And Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and My God!" Note that Thomas was speaking to Jesus. Jesus did not rebuke him for calling Him God--He accepted the praise. In fact, in the next verse, He praises Thomas. John 1:3: All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. Since Jesus created everything, He could not be a created being as He would have to create Himself which is impossible. Titus 2:13: looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. Matthew 1:23: “Behold the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” 2 Peter 1:1: Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. John 10:30-33: “I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” John 8:58: Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. Jesus stating that He is I AM is the same as saying He is God, and the Jews knew it. That is why they wanted to stone him as they considered what He said as blasphemy. (Note in Exodus 3:14 God calls Himself "I am who I am".) Isaiah 9:6: For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Note that the Son is called Mighty God and Everlasting Father--thereby stating the Son is God. Isaiah 44:6: “Thus says the Lord, King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts; I am the First and the Last; besides Me there is no God. And then in Revelation 1:17-18 there is this verse: “Do not be afraid, I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have keys of Hades and of Death.” Note that Jesus uses the phrase "I am the First and the Last" which identifies Him as God based on Isaiah. There are many more verses that show that Jesus is God. These are just a few of them. By the way the Holy Spirit is God also--see Acts 5:1-4. All quotes from the Bible are from the New King James Version which is a more modern English translation of the Textus Receptus than the King James.

[@IAmR1ch]

@@johngreene8332 You got to love made up stuff.

[@DavidDrew-n6z]

He just very specifically misread the Greek text . In the beginning was The word and The Word was with The God, and the word was god. The presence of the definitive article in Greek as a predicate nominative makes the subject a name : The Word, The God, ( both have a definitive predicate “ The” which indicates there is only one and that this is a title for that individual : nominative tense. When , in Greek , there is no predicate article an indefinite tense is understood. Thus in the second incidence of Theos in John 1:1 . Theos is neither a title ( nominative) nor does it indicate a single being but rather one of many or a quality. The second Theos is correctly rendered in English as (a) god. Or as divine. The correct interpretation of John 1:1 based upon the grammar present is this : In the beginning ( of creation) The word was , and was alongside or with The True God , and The Word was divine. Do we have any early translation from the Kione Greek originals that supports the idea expressed above ? Why yes we do. The Sahidic Coptic translation ( which itself has indefinite articles like English) is from the late 1st century and may have indeed been translated directly from the very earliest copy or even the original of John. Have does it translate? “ In the beginning The word was and The Word was with The God and The word was a god.” If you would like to research this topic from a scholarly source I recommend reading “ Truth in Translation..” by Jason Beduhn. < An actual scholar of Ancient languages teaching at the College level. Take note , he had to remove or add an article to make theos and The Logos equal. He had to alter what is present in order to match his bias.

[@als.8690]

If the Word is divine, by definition the Word is Deity..ie. the Word is God. And not a created being such as Michael the Archangel.

[@michaellazor7275]

It does not mean God almighty, the word means God like, if the Bible calls Satan the god of this earth then Jesus can be called a god as well because they were both created angels which is part of God's counsel of gods psalms 82, the bible is clear angels, men can be called gods because God allows it

[@michaeltupek3584]

I am writing as an evangelical non-trinitarian. All trinitarian interpreters are self-deceived and dishonest. White is no exception. His interpretation does not stand up to either the gospel writer’s own context or the wider context of the rest of the Bible. The OT is foundational for any NT writer. The OT knows nothing about an eternal personage alongside Yahweh. Paul and the other NT writers know nothing about an eternal personage alongside God the Father. This should be enough alarm indicating erroneous interpretation. White also violates the very important hermeneutical principle of considering the author’s own use of a particular term. White’s Trinity dogma hangs on the spider-web of IF “εν αρχη” is regarding Genesis 1. But even there, Genesis is referring not to the eternal past but to the start of creation and time. White does not bother to explain why the “beginning of the gospel” is not acceptable, and simply dismisses it. He does this because it does not serve his self-deception. But this is precisely how John uses the term “beginning.” In John’s gospel, he often contains explanation-passages of what the prologue poem is saying. In all his writings, John uses the term “beginning” to refer to the start of the public ministry of Jesus (John 6:64; 8:25; 8:44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:7, 13, 14; 3:11; 2 John 5, 6; and see Acts 1::22; 10:37). When John’s word usage is rightly considered, the complex Godhead myth evaporates from the prologue poem. For a fuller study, please refer to my book, “Israel’s Messiah-Restoring Jewish Christology”.

[@reformer-tg8hk]

You can challenge james white on the debate and presents your aces if you think james white is erroneous with his teachings and we will see who is erroneous on their teaching then. Is that a deal? 😅😅

[@reformer-tg8hk]

Evangelicals has chaotic theology based on my experience. They can not harmonize the entire scripture.

[@reformer-tg8hk]

You can challenge james white on a debate.

[@michaeltupek3584]

@@reformer-tg8hk Who are you?

[@reformer-tg8hk]

@michaeltupek3584 bro you made a claim and opposed trinitarian. So if you dare challenge james white and present your aces, for sure he will accept your challenge not just by making statements here. 😉

[@randallwittman2720]

Mr makarov 138. The IAM you are refering to , 1 is hebrew, not greek. IAM. Not the best translation.. it represent a single tense of time, the present tense. EXIST, Repeesent past ,present , future. Tense. GOD is all thos tenses.! The NT I AM of jesus ? Is mearly saying that jesus was before abraham. A diff language, different time, diff meaning. The two references CANNOT , ARENOT connected.

[@forchristgloryministry2019]

Dr.James i want to sit under you learning Greek... Beutiful awesome God bless you Release more like these learning videos .....so important......

[@addictedtojesus922]

We want Uncle Jimmy to do more of these. Please and thanks. 😎👍🏻✝️

[@SlingOfDavid9000]

destruction of john 1:1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGTOi3qLjqt1r6c

[@suryaraj7645]

Point is if you don't understand English Grammer, you can not understand Greek Grammer on top of not knowing the Greek language.. Which is necessary to understand John 1:1, if you insist on technical details... 😅

[@timothyvenable3336]

lol so true

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

It also helps if you can spell..

[@franciscafazzo3460]

Another words that means dogmatically the word was God in the definite article can be translated that in the third clause that word that logos was God so that logos was towards god with his own identity and the logos is God this is where you're fed up where that was God became flesh this my friends is the most important 14 vs where the shekinah Glory of the Old testament which was the logos which was the memory which is the word of God which is Jesus Christ God manifested in the flesh the logos was towards God the logos the word the logos was made flesh

[@randallwittman2720]

Dealing with john 1:1 c And Jesus was God. Vs And jesus was (a) ,,god. KOINE GREEK did not use the indefinite article (a) in the language. So Trinitarian translation end up being ,, Jesus was ,god/ God. However ,, why did translators leave (a) out in this verse,,, but inserted the indefinite article (a) through out the rest of John. 😢😢

[@Reinaldo-mx4dz]

70 bible translators show that John 1:1 is translated like NWT and they are not Jehovah's witnesses, what do they see that JWs see

[@kiwihans100]

Look! we can argue all day as the whether John was trying to portray His beloved master as "God himself" Though a Jew who was a devout believer in YHWH, was he now calling this man Jesus YHWH? , though he had read the Psalms that extolled God as the "Creator of Heavan and earth"? Well we dont need to argue about it since John himself summed up his entire gospel including the controversial chapter one with these important words; "These things have been written, ( including chapter one!) THAT YOU MAY BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD". Throughout his gosple in chapters 5,6,8,20 he record ed Jesus as saying "My Father is greater than I am" & "I was sent by my Father to do His will" " & "I live because of the Father"! e.t.c. conclusive truth!

[@flyfishing739]

The Question That Every Partial Preterist Postmillennial Has To Answer. if the resurrection is at the end of the age and AD 70 was the end of the age then the resurrection has already happened and is ongoing and is not biologically physical.

[@imoregloopual4725]

Say what yo want but John told me how to interpret jesus Christ and it is that he is the son of God.

[@stevenwebb6253]

Did you know that in John 1:1-3, there are different Greek words for both Gods mentioned? The Word, Jesus, (Λόγος or Logos), was with God (Θεόν, or Theon). The Word was God (Θεὸς, or Theos). He, Jesus, was in the beginning with God (Θεόν, Theon). Even though these are different cases of the same word, they are nevertheless differentiated. Satan was also called θεὸς, or Theos at 2 Corinthians 4:4. Is Satan also God? Don’t know Greek? Neither do I. Let’s break this down a little further shall we? In the beginning was the word (Jesus, Son of God), and the word (Jesus, Son of God) was with God (Almighty God, God the Father), and the word (Jesus, Son of God) was God (Almighty God, God the Father)? No matter how you put it, it doesn’t make sense!! What does make sense is that Jesus, being in the beginning with God (Genesis 1:26, John 1:1), in fact being God’s very first creation (Colossians 1:15, Proverbs 8:22, Revelation 3:14), actually calls God his God and worships God the Father. (Revelation 3:12, John 20:17)

[@ljnouata9088]

Greg Stafford lives rent free in this guys head after all these years. 😂

[@woodford3786]

Greg Stafford's "rebuttal" to the Trinity is polytheism. Y'all jump through crazy hoops to avoid praising Jesus. "Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5:22-23. If there's any confusion as to what "honor the Son just as they honor the Father" means, read Revelation 5 where the Lamb receives the exact same praise, honor, glory, and worship as the Father.

[@ljnouata9088]

@ maybe you should read the exact book where it states in Revelation 3:12 where your God, Jesus, calls someone else “my God” 4 times. How can Your God worship another God?

[@OhioPIMO]

​@@ljnouata9088Jesus is worshiping God in Revelation 3:12? I don't see that there, what version are you reading from? I do see the Lamb receiving worship in Revelation 5 which you refuse to admit. Jesus has a God because he is a man of flesh and bone and YHWH is the God of all mankind.

[@woodford3786]

@@ljnouata9088 Way to deflect and avoid answering Revelation 5. How can every creature in heaven and on earth worship a god and God, together? "You shall have no other gods before me." To answer your question regarding Revelation 3, Jesus is still a man of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39) although now glorified in heaven. If Jeremiah 32:27 is true, then naturally the man Jesus would have a God.

[@ljnouata9088]

@@woodford3786 psalms 82:6 God Almighty says *you are gods* how does that sit with ur interpretation now. “Jesus is still a man of flesh and bone” No. Jesus _was_ a man. Rev 3 speaks of Jesus being in heaven. If God says “my God” in his divine nature. would you not conclude that you are worshipping a polytheistic God.

[@addictedtojesus922]

God is Triune in Nature. Amen.

[@Scott-t2p]

God is not triune

[@DjMakinetor]

The triune is the Catholic idol, i.e. the empire of false religion.

[@williamcruz2466]

One is The God the other is a god or like god. Noun vs adjective. This man is driving me crazy going around in a circle.

[@johnnydavis5923]

There is no scripture to prove a trinity or that Jesus is God

[@Gdoggy115]

He's reading one

[@ElCineHefe]

Your grammar is not correct. John 1:1 to 1:3 is not part of any known grammaric structure. However, John 1:1 through 1:2 is a simple parallelism, called a chiasma. The clauses mirror each other at the center and at the opening and closing, which is why the nouns are in opposite order in a mirror image required by the chiasma ordered parallelism. The verse numbers are arbitrary additions, not Scripture. There's an obvious ellipsis in the third clause of 1:1. There's no grammatic basis to flip the nouns. Leave them as written. To test that bad grammar of flipping the nouns, replace the noun "word" with "Moses." See how instantly the grammar collapses with the nouns flipped? It's a ham-handed translation that's incorrect. It only works as it's written, using the correspondence of the parallel structure. The only way the parallelism can function is to mirror the second clause, which supplies the ellipsis [with], found in the preceding clause. Therefore, the third clause of John 1:1 properly reads, *"And God was [with] the word.* The ellipsis is suppied by the text. No other translation is grammatically correct using the known rules. The parallelism of John 1:1 to 1:2 is obvious, even in English, but here are the rules for the use of the *ellipsis of repetition* figuresofspeechinthebible.net/?page_id=2084

[@ElCineHefe]

Therefore, the correct translation, according to the rules, is this: *A* In the beginning was the word, *B* and the Word was *with* God, *b* and God was [with] the word. *a* He was in the beginning with God. The subject of the parallelism is, *who was with Whom in the beginning.* That's how you know you've got it right because it works seamlessly within the grammar.

[@xneutralgodx]

Does made flesh mean? GOD (spirit) became flesh itself? Or GOD ( spirit) dwelt inside flesh ? Basically is the Word of GOD the flesh or just using it as a house. Secondly is it made or became? What is the best Greek translation

[@SlingOfDavid9000]

destruction of john 1:1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGTOi3qLjqt1r6c

[@simonskinner1450]

I have my teaching which finds "become" means "changed to", so the Word which I say is Lord and Judge, has changed from an invisible God to a man. John tells us this, that all judgement has passed from the Father to the Son. Not God changing to flesh. Separately to this the Holy Spirit of God entered Jesus to allow him to do miracles on behalf of his Father, and represent God the Father of Jesus to the people. Basically I say the Word is the aspect of judgement of his right to be Judge. The answer is conceptual, as it is not a person but a position that is being discussed. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' finding the truth of the NT.

[@GodsSheepdog]

The Greek translation of the Hebrew bible was not translated correctly according to the Hebrew Bible. The Greek translation was from a Trinitarian point of view and not God's. Not one of the translators who translated the Hebrew into Greek was inspired by God's Holy Spirit. In the Greek translation of 1 John 5:7, it states, 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." However, in the Hebrew Bible, this scripture of trinitarian trinity, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," is not in it." Not only that but John 1:12 in Greek, states, " [12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. However, in the Hebrew Bible, verse 12 states, " And those who receive with him who believe in his name gave a goat to Mo to be sons of God. There are so many more mistranslations of the Greek translating Hebrew to Greek. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is not biblical because they were not inspired by God's Holy Spirit but by man's need to try and explain the Trinity. God is not the author of confusion, so why would He give us a Triune God in the Trinity that the Trinitarians themselves cannot understand nor explain. James White if you read this, I would love to debate you on the image of God.

[@AstariahJW]

John 1:1 kingdom interliner in the beginning was the word and the word was toward the God and god was the word Small g for god. So more accurate reading is word was a god or Devine There is 2 Greek forms of god in the manuscripts. John would not write at verse 18 No man has seen God at any time; If he actually believed that jesus was almighty God considering that he spent time walking around with jesus and talking to him

[@tariqskanaal8187]

Read the entire verse please

[@AstariahJW]

@@tariqskanaal8187 I already have . We know the word is jesus cause he is Gods representative. God put words in jesus mouth . So word was with God. Someone who is with another person cant be that person and yet no holy spirit is mentioned in that verse and trinitarians use john 1:1 alot to support there beliefs and it doesnt prove anything. Trinitarians have spent years trying to find proof and today still trying to find proof . Jesus is the Devine son of the most high God buy hes not almighty God So more accurate reading is word was a god or divine Other translations have rendered it as a god or divine

[@tariqskanaal8187]

@@AstariahJW I am not talking about verse 1 but about verse 18

[@AstariahJW]

@@tariqskanaal8187 oh sorry about that . John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. No man can see almighty God and live . His amazing power . The earth would not contain him . It would be destroyed. Since he created the sun . If it was off just alittle then earth would not support life So word who was jesus became human and was sent by Jehovah God to reveal the father and true God to us Jesus is only begotten son of God John 3:16 Begotten means to beget. To bring forth into existence Jesus only one created directly by Jehovah God. Everything else was created through the agency of Jesus

[@billyr9162]

@@AstariahJW John 1:1,14 [1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, *and the Word was God* [14]And the *Word was made flesh* and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Jesus is God.

[@otrotemps]

Dr. White has made significant contributions, IMHO, specifically regarding the transmission and translations of the Bible. So, this was a disappointing presentation in several respects:. While describing the 8-case system - which he was trained in according to him -- he only listed 7 cases, omitting the ablative. His references to a word's “domain” - rather than it's “range (of meanings)” - is unfortunate, as so many are familiar with Louw and Nida's lexicon of semantic domains which describes a word domain as: “meanings [essentially, words] which are often regarded as partial synonyms because the ranges of their meaning tend to overlap. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), x. Referring to “clause B” his statement that ho logos “comes before the linking verb, so it is the subject” confuses word order with the actual markers of this as clause subject, namely the Greek nominative case along with the nominative form of the article. A minor point also, I think Dr. White misspeaks once, referring to two nouns (not specifically in Jn 1.1 and not referring to case) as two “nominatives,” rather than referring to those nouns as “nominals..” Most disappointing, however, is that the arguments Dr. White gives - to support the proper view of the nature of the Logos as eternal deity - will hardly convince those who hold a different view. He affirms the uses of the imperfect nv point to continuous action in the past; but later, although only in passing, he allows that the imperfect may permit other uses, even the ingressive (hence here some might argue “began to be”). And while he clearly shows that clause C cannot be an equative/identifying clause because of the mismatched absence and presence of the article with both nominatives, - by not providing further support that the clause is a qualifying construction - Dr. White has not given a sufficient response to the objection of Arians who will merely point to the Greek language's lack of an indefinite article as allowing an alternative translation as “a god” [and then proceeding to choose that rendering based on their own theology, and ignoring that that makes them, as well as the gospel writer(!), polytheists.]

[@YoungMama2345]

FACTS

[@MattS-ov5zu]

Debate Jay Dyer

[@santino591]

🚩 *JESUS HAS A GOD* 🚩 *(Almighty God Has No Father & Prays to No One)* • Romans 15:6 - *God & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ* • Ephes. 1:3- *The God and Father of the Lord Jesus* • Ephes. 1:17 - *the God of our Lord Jesus Christ* • 1Corinths. 15:24 - Next, the end, when he [Jesus] hands over the Kingdom to his *God and Father* • 2 Cor. 1:3 - Praise be *the God & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ* • 2 Cor. 11:31 - *The God and Father of the Lord Jesus* • 1 Peter 1:3 - *The God and Father of the Lord Jesus* ______________ *JESUS CLEARLY WORSHIPS HIS FATHER* *How Can the SON Be CO-Equal To The FATHER If He Worships HIM?* 🤔 • Jesus says *"The Father is Greater than I?"* (John 14:28) *NO SUCH THING AS "Co-Equal Essence or Trinity Godhead" in Scripture!* • John 4:22 - Jesus says: You worship what you do not know; *WE WORSHIP* what we know! *(Here, Jesus clearly worships someone higher than himself)* • John 17:3 - Jesus calls the Father *THE ONLY TRUE GOD* ... "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, " *THE ONLY TRUE GOD* ," [ *and* ] the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." ( *Clear Distinction Here* ) • Jesus calls his Father " *My God and your God* " in *[the flesh]* (John 20:17) & *[in spirit]* in heaven (Rev. 3:12): - John 20:17 - on earth - Matt. 27:46 - on earth - Mark 15:34 - on earth - Rev. 1:6 - in heaven - Rev. 3:2 - in heaven - Rev. 3:12 - in heaven *[My God 4 times]*

[@H.T.2forever]

"Almighty God Has No Father & Prays to No One" Yes ... In fact, if the Trinity were really true. And expressions like "the Son of God" and "the Spirit of God" are supposedly individual "Persons of God" or "Persons who fully share in God." .... (Wow, where does scripture ever say anything like that?). Then we should naturally see mention in scripture of a "Father of God" as well. Since the Father is allegedly the highest Person of the "functional hierarchy" within the Trinity. ....

[@simonskinner1450]

The Word means Judgement, it is not a person but an attribute of God. The invisible God was Judge, but now Jesus is Judge, therefore the Judge has become flesh. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' finding the truth.

[@Rightlydividing-wx1xb]

You need to stop using the 16th century Erasmian pronunciation.

[@56pjr]

Jesus is God. Amen?

[@markequila9436]

And GOD was the WORD in greek order.. " this is awesome"

[@billyr9162]

I think what he failed to mention about the word order is that in Greek when you order it like that The word God goes to the end of the sentence and is emphasised like a bunch of exclamation points. So in 1st century they would have read it like this.... And the word was God!!!!!!!!!!

[@theservantsresource3565]

@@billyr9162 I think he did mention that the one who reads it "and God was the word," does not know how to read Greek.

[@billyr9162]

@@theservantsresource3565 Oh

[@JoseGonzalez-zy1gt]

See 23:37

[@SlingOfDavid9000]

destruction of john 1:1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGTOi3qLjqt1r6c

[@salsalazar9063]

The verb is not pronounced "ain" it's pronounced een.

[@thatonechristian2487]

That depends on which pronunciation you’re using

[@larrythrasher9713]

James is the prisoner of tradition!

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

A video like this will help a guy like me but the Jehovah's Witnesses and other intentionally blind people will never be convinced. Religious cults cannot be overcome by facts and logic. I think this is why Jesus said that He only reveals Himself (and the Father) to the ones He chooses to reveal them to. Certain folks are "vessels fitted to destruction".

[@AstariahJW]

Who's blind ? Its Christendom that cant even explain the trinity dogma and call it a mystery

[@H.T.2forever]

​@AstariahFox ; Yeah ... I mean, right in this video for instance ... "The Word was both with God and was God" at the same time? ... The term "God" supposedly means a quality at Jn. 1:1c and not an individual? ... The mere use of the Greek "ην" (was) at Jn. 1:1a means eternity into the past? So then Christ "was" (ην) in the world from eternity past at Jn. 1:10. Or John "was" (ην) baptizing in the Jordan river from eternity past at Jn. 1:28. Or Mary "was" (ην) at the wedding feast in Cana from eternity past at Jn. 2:1, etc., as well? Just flat-out ridiculous arguments of Trinitarian Christendom, yet others are supposedly the cults and blind ....SMH.... 25:03 25:03

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@H.T.2forever - Keep reading because John 1:1 is followed by John 1:2. "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made." The Word, who was in the beginning with God, was also God - the God who made all things. People who deny that Jesus is divine have to be okay with our having been created by someone other than God. In their minds then, all life did not come from God but from some lower being. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not. In my religion, life flows from the Creator God and not from some lower being. That God was made flesh and dwelt among us.

[@AstariahJW]

@@H.T.2forever in the beginning was the word John is telling us the word had a beginning right there Almighty God Jehovah has no beginning The word didnt have a eternal past John 1:1 is the most misused verse and scholars who were mostly trinitarians did not translate it accurately Silly to think God can turn himself off and on Word was God so jesus wasn't God anymore lol

[@H.T.2forever]

@GizmoFromPizmo ; First, I think you meant Jn. 1:3, not 1:2. .... And in my religion, I also believe that all life and everything else in creation flows from the creator God as the ultimate source as well, but is the Father whom no man has ever seen (Jn. 1:18; see Rev. 4:10, 11, the one seated on the throne is the one praised and credited as the creator. Not the Lamb, Christ, next to him). Not the Son Jesus Christ, who is the lesser being as the intermediate agent in the creation (1 Cor. 8:6). Which is what Jn. 1:3 is actually saying. (when translated accurately that is) ... "All things 'came into existence' (εγενετο) 'through' (δια) him (Christ)." But from where exactly? Why from God the Father of course as Paul specifically states (1 Cor. 8:6). As the ultimate source that all things come out (εκ) of.

[@jazzbassf]

I see how. This works all my comments on the 70 Bible translation has been deleted.Thanks a lot mister white

[@williamcruz2466]

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”-John 1:1, New World Translation. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”-John 1:1, New International Version. a Meaning of John 1:1 This scripture reveals This scripture reveals details about Jesus Christ’s life before he came to earth as a human. (John 1:14-17) In verse 14, “the Word” (or “the Logos,” Greek, ho loʹgos) is used as a title. The title “the Word” apparently describes Jesus’ role in communicating God’s commands and instructions to others. Jesus continued to make known God’s word during his ministry on earth and after he returned to heaven.-John 7:16; Revelation 1:1. “The beginning” refers to the time when God began his creative work and produced the Word. Thereafter, the Word was used by God in the creation of all other things. (John 1:2, 3) The Bible states that Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” and that “by means of him all other things were created.”-Colossians 1:15, 16. The phrase “the Word was a god” describes the divine or godlike nature that Jesus possessed before he came to earth. He can be described in this way because of his role as God’s Spokesman and his unique position as the firstborn Son of God through whom God created all other things. Context of John 1:1 The Bible book of John is an account of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. The opening verses of the first chapter reveal Jesus’ prehuman existence, his unique relationship with God, and his central role in God’s dealings with humans. (John 1:1-18) Those details help us to understand what Jesus said and did during his ministry on earth.-John 3:16; 6:38; 12:49, 50; 14:28; 17:5. Misconceptions About John 1:1 Misconception: The last phrase in John 1:1 should be translated “the Word was God.” Fact: While many Bible translators render the verse this way, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different. In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant. For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” b Other scholars c and Bible translations point to this same distinction.-See “ John 1:1 From Additional Translations.” Misconception: The verse teaches that the Word is the same as Almighty God. Fact: The statement “the Word was with God” indicates that two separate persons are discussed in the verse. It is not possible for the Word to be “with God” and at the same time be God Almighty. The context also confirms that the Word is not Almighty God. John 1:18 states that “no man has seen God at any time.” However, people did see the Word, Jesus, for John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.” Misconception: The Word has always existed. Fact: The “beginning” referred to in this verse cannot mean “the beginning” of God, because God had no beginning. Jehovah d God is “from everlasting to everlasting.” (Psalm 90:1, 2) However, the Word, Jesus Christ, did have a beginning. He is “the beginning of the creation by God.”-Revelation 3:14. Misconception: To call the Word “a god” teaches polytheism, the worship of many gods. Fact: The Greek word for “God” or “god” (the·osʹ) often corresponds to the Hebrew words ʼel and ʼelo·himʹ, used in what is commonly called the Old Testament. These Hebrew words are thought to convey the basic meaning “Mighty One; Strong One” and are used with reference to the almighty God, other gods, and even humans. (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34) The Word is the one through whom God created all other things, so he certainly could be described as a mighty one. (John 1:3) Describing the Word as “a god” is in line with the prophecy at Isaiah 9:6, which foretold that God’s chosen one, the Messiah or Christ, would be called “Mighty God” (Hebrew, ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ), but not “God Almighty” (ʼEl Shad·daiʹ, as in Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3; Ezekiel 10:5). The Bible does not teach polytheism. Jesus Christ said: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Matthew 4:10) The Bible states: “For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”-1 Corinthians 8:5, 6. John 1:1 From Additional Translations “In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”-The Bible-An American Translation, 1935, by J.M.P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. “The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.”-The Bible-Containing the Old and New Testaments, 1950, by James Moffatt. “The Word was in the beginning, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.”-The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808, edited by Thomas Belsham, based on a New Testament translation by William Newcome. “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was divine.”-The Authentic New Testament, 1958, by Hugh J. Schonfield. a Wording is the same in the King James Version. b The Translator’s New Testament, page 451. c Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”-Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123. d Jehovah is God’s personal name.-Psalm 83:18.

[@santino591]

*In harmony w/ your post* 🚩 *JESUS HAS A GOD* 🚩 *(Almighty God Has No Father & Prays to No One)* • Romans 15:6 - *the God & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ* • Ephes. 1:3- *The God and Father of the Lord Jesus* • Ephes. 1:17 - *the God of our Lord Jesus Christ* • 1Corinths. 15:24 - Next, the end, when he [Jesus] hands over the Kingdom to his *God and Father* • 2 Cor. 1:3 - Praise be *the God & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ* • 2 Cor. 11:31 - *The God and Father of the Lord Jesus* • 1 Peter 1:3 - *The God and Father of the Lord Jesus* ______________ *JESUS CLEARLY WORSHIPS HIS FATHER* *How Can the SON Be CO-Equal To The FATHER If He Worships HIM?* 🤔 • Jesus says *"The Father is Greater than I?"* (John 14:28) *NO SUCH THING AS "Co-Equal Essence or Trinity Godhead" in Scripture!* • John 4:22 - Jesus says: You worship what you do not know; *WE WORSHIP* what we know! *(Here, Jesus clearly worships someone higher than himself)* • John 17:3 - Jesus calls the Father *THE ONLY TRUE GOD* ... "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, " *THE ONLY TRUE GOD* ," [ *and* ] the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." ( *Clear Distinction Here* ) • Jesus calls his Father " *My God and your God* " in *[the flesh]* (John 20:17) & *[in spirit]* in heaven (Rev. 3:12): - John 20:17 - on earth - Matt. 27:46 - on earth - Mark 15:34 - on earth - Rev. 1:6 - in heaven - Rev. 3:2 - in heaven - Rev. 3:12 - in heaven *[My God 4 times]*

[@RefutingUnitarians]

As they often say in baseball, "swing and a miss!" ⚾

[@schmaingd]

Jehovah’s Witnesses memorize talking points they can’t reason through the Scriptures.

[@jimjuri6490]

John 1:1 seems to be a last ditch stand. Who cares what the rest of the scriptures teach seems to be the idea behind all this. John certainly didn't even hint that Jesus was God. Because in clear terms he stated: (John 1:34) And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one IS THE SON OF GOD.” Ordinary and unlettered persons would not be going about using intricacies of Greek in their writings. John would write what a normal person would understand. Sons being their own father is certainly not one idea anyone would believe. Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were astonished. And they began to realize that they had been with Jesus.

[@Post-Trib]

The Word or Logos was in the beginning with God and was God. The Logos of God is his forethought or plan of God. It's not another person

[@IAmR1ch]

The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. and we have seen his glory. Sounds like another person to me.

[@Post-Trib]

@IAmR1ch you're wrong. The Logos or Word of God is the prophetic mind of God. It was God's plan from before creation to provide humanity a means of salvation which he purchased with his blood.

[@IAmR1ch]

@@Post-Trib I am not wrong because I did not say what was right, I quoted scriptures. I did not make this up this is what the word says. You speak a bunch of made up stuff. What scriptures says the the Logos was gods plan before the creation to provide salvation? There is no scripture, you must made that up. You are reading the word and coming to some conclusion. I am not. In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with God and the Logos was God. The Logos because flesh and made his dwelling among us and we have seen his glory.

[@Post-Trib]

@IAmR1ch you obviously don't know the definition of Logos. Go and find out

[@IAmR1ch]

@@Post-Trib If there was a scripture that supported what you said. I am sure you would have given it to me, but you don't have one so you make stuff up and tell people like me to go find out what we already know.

[@benjamina6915]

You lost me in the first few minutes already when you read John 1:1 and not reading what it actually says, but what you want it to say. And the word was God is your reading of thelast part, but the Greek clearly says And God was the word. I know it's more convenient to read it your way, but if you read it the way it actually is written and contemplate those words, you might get some surprising thoughts. I know, imagine that, surprising thoughts, we don't want that to happen, we only to read the Bible the way our doctrines tell us to read it. God forbid we might figure out that our doctrines could well be heresies in the light of the truth of God's word. Keep on reading the Bible the way you want, instead of letting it reveal the truth about who God really is. Imagine Paul really telling us what he believed by saying we only have one God, the Father, telling us the trinity is a man made doctrine. But of course, Paul didn't really believe what he wrote us and neither did John say here that God is the word, we know so much better than what the did, since we have our precious doctrines telling us what the bible really says. God forbid we take the word face value, how misleading would that be. God have mercy on us for not believing His word, but making our man made doctrines a higher authority. John 1:1 never says the word is God, but states that the spoken words by God carries his authority. Not that His word is some separate being. God and His words are one and God is one, not three or three in one. There's nothing biblical about the trinity, unless you twist words like this you have to do to support your doctrine. Christians should start upholding the words of God, not the doctrines of man.

[@dsjr.8796]

I think you are missing the predicate nominative rule... The Greek is correct. Reading predicate before subject noun. In English, reads subject noun before predicate. This is secular comprehension, no need for religious gurus. I hope this helps. Don't let your theological opinion prevent you from reading this grammatically correct.

[@benjamina6915]

@dstambaughjr.1043 that rule only seems to apply when it's convenient and not every translator and scholar abides by it. There are plenty of other verses where the rule should apply, but translators ignore it, because the translation wouldn't make sense at all. I'm sure you know that though. As for theology, funny you should say that, since obviously most translators and scholars are led by theology in their translation and interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek. There aren't many unbiased translations around. Many translators and scholars obey rules when it's convenient and ignore them when it conflicts with their theology and doctrines.

[@dsjr.8796]

@@benjamina6915 I'm not sure what translation/scripture you are referring to? I absolutely agree religious sects scew scripture to lean to their doctrine that is obvious (example NWT) But this John 1:1 is as written. The word was God, not a god, not divine, but God. θεὸς ἦν is the nominative predicate being the subject noun with verb this implies a ὁ article. θεὸς being a subject noun with another subject in the same sequence containing the article as ὁ λόγος. A subject cannont come before a subject... Thats where the nominative predicate rule comes in. This is why it's read in the order it is in English. I'm not sure where you are getting stuck here. Is it the God part or the order?

[@benjamina6915]

@dstambaughjr.1043 not only so called religious sects twist scriptures, plenty of mainstream christian scholars do it as well. The kjv and nkjv are full of biased translation choices. In the end translating correctly isn't a matter of being right or wrong, it's about sales. No one buys a correctly translated bible that goes against popular doctrines. In English that's not done. I'm Dutch. The two newest Dutch translations translate John 1:1 correctly, but you would say incorrectly. Still the translators choose to translate John 1:1 following the literal Greek. These are not some obscure translations by some sects, but by people with an evangelical background and reformed background. If they make that choice, I can make that choice. They've studied Greek way more than you and I have.

[@dsjr.8796]

How do the Dutch translate it? Or better yet, what is the book translation? I'd like to study it. I'm learning myself. I agree the KJV has its hiccups. All translations are guilty of "like-word" fallacy. IMHO. You can't translate Greek or Hebrew without changing the text. The KJV is that Grandaddy bible by design. King James banned any new printing of the Geneva Bible to sell his own. I'm still very curious what you consider the correct translation of John 1:1 and why?