Where in the Bible You That Christ Is a Substance in Pdf

Verse of the Bible

John 1:1
← Luke 24 1:2 →
First page of John's Gospel from the Coronation Gospels, c. 10th centred.
Word	Gospel of John
Christian Bible set out	New Testament

John 1:1 is the first poesy in the inaugural chapter of the Gospel of Can in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. In the Douay–Reims, King James, Revised Standard, New International, and separate versions of the Holy Writ, the verse line reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

John 1:1 opens the larger incision sometimes described As the "Prologue to John the Divin" (John 1:1–18) which deals with Delivere, the "Articulate made flesh" who "dwelt among America" (John 1:14). The verse has been a source of much moot among Christian Bible scholars and translators.

"Word", a interlingual rendition of the Greek λόγος (Logos), is widely interpreted Eastern Samoa referring to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the same chapter.^[5] This verse and others throughout Johannine literature tie in the Christian understanding of Jesus to the philosophical melodic theme of the Logos and the Hebrew Wisdom literature. They as wel set the stage for the late development of Trinitarian theology early in the berth-biblical era.

History [edit]

Tertullian in the early third 100 wrote:

Now if this cardinal [the Word] is God according to John ("the Bible was God"), then you have two: one World Health Organization speaks that it may be, and some other who carries IT out. However, how you should accept this arsenic "another" I take explained: as concerning person, not substance, and as distinction, not division.^[6]

And a little later:

And that you English hawthorn think more fully along this, accept also that in the Psalm cardinal gods are mentioned: "Thy throne, God, is forever, a perch of right focussing is the rod of thy kingdom; thou hast loved judicature and hated iniquity, thence God, thy God, hath anointed thee." If he is oral presentation to a god, and the god is anointed aside a god, then also here helium affirms two gods... More is what you will find just the same in the Gospel: "In the first place was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divinity": One who was, and another in whose presence helium was.^[7]

Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Balkan nation grammar of the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article:

We future notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without aid therein regard, nor is helium unfamiliar with the niceties of the Hellene tongue. In some cases atomic number 2 uses the article, and in many he omits information technology. He adds the article to the Son, but to the gens of God he adds it sometimes only. Helium uses the article, when the name of Divinity refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God [...] Now there are some World Health Organization are truly concerned about religion, and who fall here into capital perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fearfulness drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own in any case that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be Divinity all but the nominate, or they deny the deity of the Son, bounteous Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of marrow fall outside that of the Sire, and then that they are separable from from each one other. [...] The true God, then, is "The Supreme Being."^[8]

Beginning text and translations [edit]

Koine Greek	Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. [9] [10]
Hellenic transliteration	Nut arkhêi ên holmium lógos, kaì holmium lógos ên pròs tòn theón, kaì theòs ên holmium lógos.
Syriac Peshitta	ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀
Syriac transliteration	brīšīṯ ʾiṯauhi hwā milṯā, whu milṯā ʾiṯauhi hwā luaṯ ʾalāhā; wʾalāhā iṯauhi hwā hu milṯā
Sahidic Christian	ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
Sahidic Coptic transliteration	Hydrogen azide teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe. [11]
Sahidic Coptic to English	Originally existed the Word, and the Word existed with the Graven image, and a God was the News.[12] [13] [14]
Latin Vulgate	In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.
Serbian Cyrillic alphabet	У почетку бјеше Логос (Ријеч), и Логос бјеше у Бога, и Логос Бјеше Бог. [15]

• 

  Leaf-book Vaticanus (300–325), The death of Gospel of Luke and the beginning of Gospel of John

John 1:1 in English versions [edit]

The traditional rendering in English is:

In the offse was the Good Book, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Translations away Jesse James Moffatt, Edgar J. Goodspeed and Hugh J. Schonfield render part of the verse as "...the Countersign [Logos] was divine". Murray J. Harris writes,

[It] is clear away that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is beingness victimized to denote his nature or essence, and not his individual. Only in normal English exercis "God" is a strait-laced noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "Graven image" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Triplet … The rendering cannot stand without explanation."^[16]

An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible comment notes:

This second theos could also embody translated 'churchman' as the expression indicates "a soft sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sentience that he is the duplicate person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT employment) or the Ternary. The luff existence made is that the Logos is of the synoptic uncreated nature operating room essence as Deity the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative surgery derivative) from God (personal, the Father-God), Light from Light, True God from Real God… homoousion with the Father."^[17]

Strange variations of rendering, both in transformation or paraphrase, John 1:1c as wel exist:

• 14th century: "and Deity was the Holy Writ" – Wiclif's Bible (translated from the 4th-hundred Italic Vulgate)
• 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Better Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Punished Text, London.
• 1822: "and the Word was a idol" – The New Testament in Greek and English people (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
• 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel Story According to the Tetrad Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
• 1863: "and the Word was a immortal" – A Literal Rendering of the Untested Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
• 1864: "the LOGOS was God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
• 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Mount Wilson, New York and London (left column interlineal recitation)
• 1867: "and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
• 1879: "and the Word was a immortal" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
• 1885: "and the Password was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Sacred Bible (R. Young, 1885)
• 1911: "and [a] God was the word" – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Idiom, by George II William Horner.^[18]
• 1924: "the Logos was divine" – The Bible: King James I Moffatt Displacement, away James Moffatt.^[19]
• 1935: "and the Word was glorious" – The Bible: An American Interlingual rendition, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.^[20]
• 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.^[21]
• 1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Enlarged Translation^[22]
• 1958: "and the Word was a God" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Jesus of Nazareth Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
• 1962, 1979: "'the tidings was Supreme Being.' Operating room, more literally, 'God was the word.'" – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
• 1966, 2001: "and he was the assonant as God" – The Good Tidings Holy Scripture.
• 1970, 1989: "and what God was, the Word was" – The Fresh English Holy Writ and The Revised English Bible.
• 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, away Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
• 1975: "and the Formulate was a graven image" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
• 1978: "and godlike sort was the Son" – Hyrax Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
• 1985: "So the Word was divine" - The Original New Testament, away Hugh J. Schonfield.^[23]
• 1993: "The Word was God, in readiness for Graven image from day one." — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.^[24]
• 1998: "and what God was the News also was" – This translation follows Prof Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington.^[25]
• 2017: "and the Logos was god" - The Untested Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Lorenz Hart.^[26]

Difficulties [edit]

The school tex of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-equal statements, or we toilet commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church service account, heresy develops when a misinterpretation arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate case, and grammatical word monastic order. The future church unorthodoxy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church unorthodoxy of Arianism understood IT to read, "and the Logos was a God."

—Jacques Louis David A. Reed^[27]

There are 2 issues affecting the translating of the verse, 1) theology and 2) proper covering of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to supply the verse is the same which is almost popular.^[28] The opposing theology that Christ is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "... a god" or "... divine" is the proper rendering.^[29] Some scholars oppose the translation ...a god,^{[30] [31] [32] [33]} while other scholars trust IT is possible or even preferable.^{[34] [35] [36]}

Grammar [edit]

The Balkan state clause is a great deal translated the, which is the English expressed article, but it can have a range of meanings that lav be quite different from those found in English, and compel context to see.^[37] Ancient Greek does not have an indefinite article same the English word a, and nominatives without articles besides have a array of meanings that require circumstance to interpret. In rendition this verse, Colwell's rule should be taken into consideration, which says that a certain predicate which is ahead the verb "to exist" usually does not have the definite article. Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:

The opening poetize of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a verb phrase as a definite noun. Καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος [Kaì theòs ên ho lógos] looks much Thomas More like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was divine" when viewed with reference to this convention. The absence of the clause does not make the predicate undefined or soft when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands IT. The circumstance makes no such demand in the Gospel of Privy, for this program line cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [Footnote: John 20,28]."^[38]

Jason David BeDuhn (Prof of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University) criticizes Colwell's Reign as methodologically unsound and "not a valid ruler of Greek grammar."^[39]

Book of the Prophet Daniel B. Wallace (Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary) argues that the use of the anarthrous theos (the lack of the definite article before the sec theos) is due to its use as a qualitative noun, describing the nature or essence of the Word, sharing the essence of the Get, though they differed personally: he stresses: "The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the near precise way of life he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was definite from the Father".^[40] He questions whether Colwell's rule helps in interpreting Bathroom 1:1. It has been said^{[ by whom? ]} that Colwell's govern has been misapplied as its converse, as though it inexplicit determinateness.^[41]

Murray J. Harris (Retired Professor of NT Exegesis and Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) discusses "descriptive linguistics, theological, historical, literary and other issues that bear upon the interpretation of θεὸς" and conclude that, among other uses, "is a christological title that is primarily metaphysics in nature" and adds that "the application of θεὸς to Jesus Christ asserts that Jesus is ... God-by-nature.^{[42] [43] [44]}

St. John the Apostle L. McKenzie (Catholic Biblical scholar) wrote that ho Theos is God the Father, and adds that John 1:1 should exist translated "the word was with the God [=the Father], and the articulate was a divine existence."^{[45] [46]}

St. James D. G. Dunn (Emeritus Lightfoot Prof at University of Durham) states:

Philo demonstrates that a distinction 'tween ho theos and theos such as we find in John 1.1b-c, would be deliberate by the author and significant for the Greek reader. Not only soh, Philo shows that He could jubilantly call the Logos 'Immortal/god' without infringing his monotheism (Beaver State even 'the second God' – Qu.Gen. 2.62). Bearing in mind our findings with regard to the Logos in Philo, this cannot but be profound: the Logos for Philo is 'God' non as a being individual of 'the God' but as 'the God' in his knowability – the Logos erect for that limited apprehension of the one Graven image which is all that the rational man, symmetric the mystic may attain to."^[47]

B. F. Westcott is quoted by C. F. D. Moule (Lady Margaret's Professor of God in the University of Cambridge):

The predicate (God) stands emphatically ordinal, as in 4:24. 'IT is inevitably without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does non identify His Person. Information technology would be pure Sabellianism to say "the Holy Scripture was ho theós". No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the manikin of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Savior five 27 (hóti huiòs anthrópou estín . . . ).'^[48]

Duke of Edinburgh B. Harner (Professor Retired of Religion at Heidelberg College) says:

Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature equally God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no to a lesser degree ho theos, had the nature of theos.^[49]

The rendition as "a god" is even by both non-Trinitarians by comparison it with Acts 28:6 which has a similar well-formed building'^[50] "The people expected him to swell raised or suddenly fall at peace; just later waiting a long time and seeing nix funny happen to him, they changed their minds and same he was a god."^{[Ac. 28:6 NIV]}. However, it was celebrated that the Hebraic wrangle El, HaElohim and Yahweh (altogether referring to God) were rendered as anarthrous theos in the Septuagint at Nahum 1:2, Isaiah 37:16, 41:4, Jeremiah 23:23 and Ezekiel 45:9 among many other locations. Moreover, in the New Testament anarthrous theos was put-upon to refer to God in locations including John 1:18a, Romans 8:33, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 6:16 and Hebrews 11:16 (although the stopping point two references do have an major form class aspect to them). Therefore, anarthrous or arthrous constructions away themselves, without circumstance, cannot determine how to render it into a target language. In Deuteronomy 31:27 the septuagint text, "supported by all MSS... reads πρὸς τὸν θεόν for the Someone עִם־ יְהֹוָ֔ה",^[51] merely the oldest Hellenic language schoolbook in Papyrus Fouad 266 has graphical πρὸς יהוה τὸν θεόν.^[51]

In the October 2011 Journal of Theological Studies, Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti^[52] reason that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation, of John 1:1, has a qualitative meaning. Many so much occurrences for analysis nouns are identified in the Coptic New Testament, including 1 John 1:5 and 1 John 4:8. Moreover, the indefinite article is used to refer to God in Book of Deuteronomy 4:31 and Malachi 2:10.

Biblical parallels [edit]

"In the beginning (archē) was the Word (logos)" Crataegus oxycantha be compared with:

• Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning Immortal created heaven, and earth."^[53] The opening language of the Old Testament are too "In the first place". Theologist Charles Ellicott wrote:

"The reference to the initiative words of the Used Testament is demonstrable, and is the more contact when we remember that a Israelite would constantly speak of and quote from the Genesis as "Berēshîth" ("originally"). It is quite harmonical with the Hebrew feel of this Gospel to do so, and it rear hardly make up that St. John wrote his Berēshîth without having that of Anna Mary Robertson Moses present to his mind, and without being guided by its substance.^[54]

• Mark 1:1: "The get-go of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."^[55]
• St. Luke 1:2: "Accordant equally they have delivered them unto United States of America, World Health Organization from the beginning (archē) were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Word).^{[56] [57]}
• 1 John 1:1: "That which was from the root (archē), which we accept detected, which we have seen with our eyes, which we consume looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word (logos) of life".^{[58] [59]}

"...was God (Theós)" may be compared with Acts 28:6:

• "But they supposed that he would begin to swell in the lead, and that he would suddenly fall down and die. Just expecting long, and seeing that there came no harm to him, dynamical their minds, they said, that helium was a graven image (theón)."^[60]
• "Howbeit they looked when he should have overflowing, or fallen down dead abruptly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a idol (theón)." (KJV)^[61]
• "But they were expecting that helium was going to swell or suddenly drop dead. And so after they had waited a aware sentence and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they denaturized their minds and said he was a Supreme Being (theón)." (NET)^[62]
• "Howbeit they looked when helium should have swollen, or fallen consume dead suddenly: merely later on they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that He was a god (theón)." (DNKJB)^[63]

From the Biblos Text Bible:^[64]

hoi	DE	prosedokōn	auton	mellein	pimprasthai	ē	katapiptein	aphnō	nekron
οἱ	δὲ	προσεδόκων	αὐτὸν	μέλλειν	πίμπρασθαι	ἢ	καταπίπτειν	ἄφνω	νεκρόν
-	but	they were expecting	him	to be loss	to become inflamed	or	to devolve down	suddenly	dead

epi	poly	de	autōn	prosdokōntōn	kai	theōrountōn	mēden	atopon	eis	auton	ginomenon
ἐπὶ	πολὺ	δὲ	αὐτῶν	προσδοκώντων	καὶ	θεωρούντων	μηδὲν	ἄτοπον	εἰς	αὐτὸν	γινόμενον
after a while	great	withal	they	expecting	and	sighted	nothing	amiss	to	him	happening

metabalomenoi	elegon	auton	einai	theon
μεταβαλόμενοι	ἔλεγον	αὐτὸν	εἶναι	θεόν
having denaturised their opinion	said	he	was	a idol

From Scribe's Textus Receptus 1894:^[65]

οι	δε	προςεδοκων	αyτον	μελλειν	πιμπραςθαι	η	καταπιπτειν	αφνω	νεκρον
hoi	de	prosedokOn	auton	mellein	pimprasthai	E	katapiptein	aphnO	nekron
THE	YET	THEY-TOWARD-SEEMED	him	TO-BE-organism-ABOUT	TO-BE-beingness-INFLAMED	OR	TO-Make up-Land-Soft	suddenly	DEAD

επι	πολυ	δε	αyτων	προςδοκωντων	και	θεωρουντων	μηδεν	ατοπον	εις	αυτον	γινομενον
Eysenck Personality Inventory	polu	de	autOn	prosdokOntOn	kai	theOrountOn	mEden	atopon	eis	auton	ginomenon
ON	much	YET	OF-them	TOWARD-Apparent	AND	OF-beholdING	NO-YET-Nonpareil	United Nations-Set	INTO	him	Decent

μεταβαλλομενοι	ελεγον	θεον	αyτων	ειναι
metaballomenoi	elegon	theon	auton	einai
later on-CASTING	THEY-said	god	him	TO-BE

[edit]

Chrysostom: "While all the else Evangelists begin with the Incarnation, St. John the Apostle, passing over the Conception, Nativity, education, and growth, speaks immediately of the Eternal Generation, saying, In the beginning was the Word."

Augustine: "The Greek word "logos" signifies both Word and Reason. But therein passage it is better to interpret it Phrase; as referring not only to the Padre, but to the foundation of things by the operative power of the Intelligence; whereas Reason, though it bring forth nothing, is still justly known as Reason."

Augustine: "Language aside their daily use, sound, and passage knocked out of us, have become common things. But in that location is a Scripture which remaineth inward, in the very Man himself; distinct from the sound which proceedeth outer of the mouth. In that location is a word, which is sincerely and spiritually that, which you understand by the sound, not being the actual reasoned. . Now whoever can conceive the notion of word, every bit existing not only before its safe, but even before the idea of its sound is formed, may see enigmatically, and as it were in a glaze over, whatever similitude of that Word of Which information technology is said, In the first place was the Give voice. For when we give expression to something which we acknowledge, the intelligence used is necessarily derived from the knowledge therefore retained in the memory, and must Be of the same quality with that cognition. For a word is a thought tensile from a thing which we know; which word is spoken in the heart, being neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any language, though, when we want to communicate it to others, some sign is assumed aside which to show it.… . Wherefore the word which sounds outwardly, is a sign of the word which lies hid inside, to which the name of word many rightfully appertains. For that which is uttered by the mouth of our flesh, is the voice of the word; and is in fact called word, with reference thereto from which it is taken, when it is developed externally."

Basil the Great of Caesarea: "This Word is non a human word. For how was in that respect a human word in the beginning, when man received his being last of entirely? Thither was not then any Logos of man in the origin, nor in time of Angels; for every creature is inside the limits of clock, having its beginning of existence from the Maker. Simply what says the Religious doctrine? It calls the Lonesome-Biological Himself the Word."

Chrysostom: "But why omitting the Father of the Church, does he proceed at formerly to speak of the Son? Because the Father was famous to whol; though non Eastern Samoa the Father, all the same as Idol; whereas the Only-Begotten was not known. As was satisfy then, he endeavours foremost to infuse the knowledge of the Son on those WHO knew Him not; though neither in discoursing on Him, is he tout ensemble silent along the Father. And inasmuch American Samoa he was about to teach that the Word was the Only-Begotten Son of God, that no more one might think this a passible (παθητὴν) generation, he makes mention of the Holy Scripture in the first place, in order to destroy the dangerous suspicion, and express that the Son was from God impassibly. And a second reason is, that He was to declare unto us the things of the Father. (John. 15:15) Only He does non speak of the Word simply, but with the addition of the clause, ready to distinguish It from other words. For Scripture calls God's Torah and commandments words; just this Word is a convinced Substance, or Somebody, an Essence, coming forth impassibly from the Father Himself."

Basil of Caesarea of Caesarea: "Wherefore then Word? Because born impassibly, the Image of Him that begat, manifesting all the Sire in Himself; abstracting from Him nothing, but existing unadulterated in Himself."

St. Augustine: "Right away the Word of God is a Form, not a shaping, but the Form of each forms, a Form unchangeable, removed from fortuity, from loser, from time, from space, surpassing all things, and existing in all things as a gentle of foundation underneath, and summit above them."

Basil of Caesarea: "Yet has our superficial word some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive upstairs we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as IT were the source, and the uttered give voice the stream which flows thence."

Chrysostom: "Observe the spiritual wisdom of the Evangelist. He knew that work force honoured most what was most ancient, and that honouring what is before everything else, they conceived of information technology as God. On this account He mentions archetypical the beginning, expression, In the first place was the Word."

Augustine of Hippo: "Or, In the beginning, as if it were said, before all things."

Basil of Caesarea: "The Holy Spirit foresaw that men would arise, World Health Organization should enviousness the aureole of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers by sophistry; as if because He were begotten, He was not; and in front He was biological, Helium was not. That none power dare then to babble such things, the Holy Ghost saith, Earlier was the Word of God."

Hilary of Battle of Poitiers: "Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what first thou wilt in thy imagining, thou graspest IT not in time, for Helium, from Whom IT is derived, still was."

Chrysostom: "As then when our ship is near shore up, cities and port pass in survey before America, which on the open sea vanish, and leave nada whereon to furbish up the eye; so the Evangelist here, taking us with him in his flight above the created world, leaves the eye to gaze in vacuum connected an illimitable expanse. For the speech, was in the beginning, are significative of eternal and innumerable burden."

Council of Ephesus: "Why in one point Maker Scripture calls Him the Son, in other the Word, in another the Brightness of the Father; name calling severally meant to hold against blasphemy. For, forasmuch As thy son is of the same nature with thyself, the Scripture wishing to show that the Substance of the Father and the Son is one, sets forth the Son of the Male parent, born of the Engender, the Single-Begotten. Next, since the terms parturition and son, convey the mind of passibleness, thus it calls the Son the Word, declaring by that advert the impassibility of His Nascency. But inasmuch as a Fatherhood with us is needfully older than his son, lest thou shouldest think that this practical to the Godlike nature too, IT calls the Only-Biological the Brightness of the Father; for brightness, though arising from the sun, is not posterior to IT. Empathize and so that Luminosity, atomic number 3 telling the coeternity of the Boy with the Male parent; Word as proving the impassibility of His birth, and Son Eastern Samoa conveying His consubstantiality."

Chrysostom: "But they say that In the beginning does not perfectly express timeless existence: for that the same is said of the Shangri-la and the earth: In the beginning God ready-made the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1) But are not made and was, wholly different? For in like manner as the password is, when spoken of man, signifies the present tense but, just when applied to Graven image, that which always and eternally is; so besides was, predicated of our nature, signifies the past, simply predicated of Idol, eternity."

Origen: "The verb to be, has a double signification, sometimes expressing the motions which take place in clip, as other verbs answer; sometimes the substance of that single thing of which it is predicated, without reference to time. Hence information technology is also called a substantive verb."

Hilary of Battle of Poitiers: "Turn over then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God successful the Eden and the dry land. Whatever hence is created is made earlier, and one thousand wouldest hold back one of these days, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for ME, an illiterate unlearned fisherman is main of time, unconfined aside ages, advanceth beyond all beginnings. For the Word of honor was, what it is, and is not bounded by any fourth dimension, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not ready-made earlier, but was."

Alcuin: " To refute those World Health Organization inferred from Christ's Birth in prison term, that He had not been from unending, the Evangelist begins with the eternity of the Word, locution, In the beginning was the Word."

Chrysostom: "Because it is an especial attribute of Graven image, to constitute eternal and without a beginning, he arranged this down archetypal: then, lest any one on hearing in the beginning was the Give voice, should suppose the Word Unbegotten, He in real time guarded against this; saying, And the Word was with God."

Hilary of Poitiers: "From the beginning, He is with God: and though independent of time, is not autarkical of an Author."

St. Basil the Grea: "Again he repeats this, was, because of men blasphemously saying, that there was a time when Helium was not. Where then was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He then? With God. For neither is the Forefather bounded by put on, nor the Son by aught circumscribing."

Origen: "It is worth piece noting, that, whereas the Word is aforesaid to come1 [be made] to any, A to Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with God it is not made, Eastern Samoa though IT were not with Him before. Simply, the Word having been e'er with Him, information technology is said, and the Word was with God: for from the beginning it was not separate from the Father."

Chrysostom: "Helium has non aforementioned, was in God, but was with God: exhibiting to America that eternity which He had in accordance with His Person."

Theophylact of Ohrid: "Sabellius is overthrown by this text edition. For he asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, World Health Organization sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes A the Holy Ghost. But he is plainly confounded by this text, and the Word was with God; for here the Evangelist declares that the Son is one Person, God the Father another."

Hilary of Poitiers: "But the championship is absolute, and unfixed from the offense of an outside discipline. To Moses information technology is said, I throw given1 thee for a god to Pharaoh: (Exod. 7:1) but is not the reason for the nominate added, when it is said, to Pharaoh of Egypt? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one affair to be given for a God, another thing to be Graven image. I call back too other application of the gens in the Psalms, I stimulate said, ye are gods. But on that point too it is implicit that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it kinda the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. Merely when I hear the Word was God, I not only get a line the Word said to be, merely perceive It tried to personify, God."

Basil of Caesarea: "Thus cutting off the cavils of blasphemers, and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, and the Word was Immortal."

Theophylact of Ohrid: " Or compound IT thus. From the Word being with God, it follows obviously that there are two Persons. But these two are of matchless Nature; and therefore it proceeds, In the Word was Deity: to show that Father and Boy are of One Nature, being of One Godhead."

Origen: "We mustiness add too, that the Word illuminates the Prophets with Divine wisdom, in that He cometh to them; but that with God Atomic number 2 ever is, because Helium is Supreme Being. For which reason He placed and the Word of God was with Idol, earlier and the Word was God."

Chrysostom: "Not asserting, as Plato does, one to be intelligence,1 the another soul;2 for the Divine Nature is very distinct from this.... But you say, the Father is called God with the addition of the clause, the Son without it. What say you then, when the Apostle. writes, The great God and our Saviour Saviour; (Titt. 2:13) and once again, Who is over all, Immortal; (ROM. 9:5) and Adorn be unto you and peace from God our Father; (Rom. 1:7) without the article? Besides, too, it were superfluous here, to affix what had been affixed just before. So that IT does not come, though the article is not affixed to the Son, that Atomic number 2 is thence an inferior God.

References [edit]

1. ^ John 1:1, Douay-Rheims
2. ^ John 1:1, KJV
3. ^ John 1:1, RSV
4. ^ Saint John 1:1, NIV
5. ^ Date verses 14-17: "And the Word became chassis and dwelt among us, and we stimulate seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Get, full of grace and Truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He WHO comes after me ranks before me, because he was before ME.'")... For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Jesus Christ."
6. ^ Qui si ipse deus est secundum Ioannem - Deus erat sermo - habes duos, alium dicentem universal time order, alium facientem. alium autem quomodo accipere debeas iam professus heart, personae not substantiae nomine, ad distinctionem non ad divisionem. Adversus Praxeas ^{[ permanent inelastic linkup ]} 12.
7. ^ Et ut adhuc amplius hoc putes, accipe et in psalmo duos deos dictos: Thronus tuus, deus, in aevum, <virga directionis> virga regni tui; dilexisti iustitiam et odisti iniquitatem, propterea unxit ti deus, deus tuus. Si ad deum loquitur, et unctum deum a deo, affirmat et hic duos deos... Plus Eastern Standard Time quod in evangelio totidem invenies: In principio erat sermo et sermo erat apud deum et deus erat sermo: unus qui erat, et alius penes quem erat. Adversus Praxeas ^{[ permanent abruptly link ]} 13.
8. ^ Origen, Commentary on John, Book of account II, chap. 2
9. ^ The Greek English New Testament. Christianity Today. 1975
10. ^ Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece Take NA28 online
11. ^ Sahidica 2.01. J. Warren Wells. 2007.January.28 http://www.biblical-data.org/coptic/Sahidic_NT.pdf
12. ^ The Trustees of the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin/CBL Cpt 813, ff. 147v-148r/World Wide Web.cbl.ie. "Sahidic Coptic Translation of John 1:1". Republished by Watchtower . Retrieved 20 October 2018.
13. ^ The Coptic version of the New Testament in the southern accent : otherwise known as Sahidic and Thebaic ; with nitpicking setup, literal English translation, register of fragments and estimate of the version. 3, The gospel of S. John, register of fragments, etc., facsimiles. 3. Horner, George, 1849-1930. [Raleigh, Tar Heel State]: [Lulu Enterprises]. 2014. ISBN9780557302406. OCLC 881290216. CS1 maint: others (link)
14. ^ "Translating Sahidic Christian Whoremonger 1:1 | Gospel Of John | Translations". Scribd . Retrieved 2018-10-21 .
15. ^ Библија: Свето писмо Старога и Новога завјета. Београд: Библијско друштво Србије. 2017. p. 1049. ISBN978-86-86827-31-9.
16. ^ Harris, Murray J., Jesus A God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Christ, 1992, Baker Books, pub. SBN 0801021952, p. 69
17. ^ Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2009, p231.
18. ^ Horner, George William (1911). The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Southern accent : other titled Sahidic and Thebaic ; with critical apparatus, literal English interlingual rendition, register of fragments and forecast of the variant. Robarts - University of Toronto. Oxford : The Clarendon Press. ISBN978-0557302406.
19. ^ The Bible : James Moffatt translation : with concordance. Moffatt, James, 1870-1944. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics. 1994. ISBN9780825432286. OCLC 149166602. CS1 maint: others (link)
20. ^ "John 1 In the opening the Word existed. The Word was with Supreme Being, and the Word was divine". studybible.information . Retrieved 2018-10-21 .
21. ^ Schonfield, Hugh J. (1958). The Authentic Fres Testament. UK (1955), USA (1958): Panther, Signet. ISBN9780451602152. CS1 maint: location (unite)
22. ^ S. Wuest, Kenneth (1956). New Testament: An Expanded Interlingual rendition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 209. ISBN0-8028-1229-5.
23. ^ Zulfiqar Ali Shah (2012). Anthropomorphic Depictions of God: The Construct of God in Monotheism, Christian and Islamic Traditions : Representing the Unrepresentable. International Institute of Monotheism Thought (IIIT). p. 300. ISBN9781565645752.
24. ^ For a dead list of 70 non traditional translations of John 1:1, examine HTTP://simplebibletruths.network/70-John-1-1-Truths.htm
25. ^ Madonn L. Coloe, ed. (2013). Creation is Inarticulate: Sacred text and Theological Perspectives (Reprinted ed.). Rite Press. p. 92. ISBN9780814680650.
26. ^ Hart, David (2017). The New Testament: A Translation.
27. ^ David A. Reed. "How Semitic Was John? Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1." Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2003, Vol. 85 Issue 4, p709
28. ^ William Arnold III, Colwell's Rule and Toilet 1:1 Archived 2007-04-04 at the Wayback Motorcar at apostolic.net: "You could only deduct a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 if you resuscitate this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology. If you approached it with a strict Monotheism (which is what I think John held to) then this handing over would definitely support such a reckon."
29. ^ Beduhn in Verity in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the Early Testament chapter 11 states: "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, New American Standard Bible, Abdominal muscle, Good News Bible and LB all approached the text at Gospel According to John 1:1 already believing sealed things about the Word...and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs.... Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to direction the NW version with "doctrinal predetermine" for translating the verse literally, free KJV influence, favourable the sense of the Greek. It may really advantageously be that the NW translators came to the undertaking of translating Bathroom 1:1 with as much prejudice as the other translators did. It just so happens that their diagonal corresponds therein case to a more dead-on translation of the Greek."
30. ^ Dr. J. R. Mantey: "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Book was a god.'"
31. ^ Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Will Speech communication and Lit): "As a matter of solid fact, however, much a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. IT overlooks whole an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering "...and the Word was God." http://WWW.Holy Writ-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html—see chapter IV point 1.
32. ^ Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
33. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=xEvXKTG9Mf4C&pg=PA211&dq=%22new+world+translation%22+falsification&hectolitre=nut&Sturmarbeiteilung=X&ei=uJc1UcSfEunqiAeTq4B4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=new%20world%20translation&adenylic acid;f=false Ben Witherington Trine, The Surviving Word of Supreme Being, 2007, Baylor University Press, pp. 211-213.
34. ^ Dr. Jason BeDuhn (of Northern Arizona University) in regard to the Kingdom Interlinear's appendix that gives the argue why the NWT favoured a translation of John Lackland 1:1 As expression the Password was not "God" but "a god" aforementioned: "In fact the KIT [Vermiform appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the advisable scholarship done on this depicted object.."
35. ^ Murray J. Harris has typed: "Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered "the Word was a god,...." -Jesus As Divinity, 1992, p. 60.
36. ^ C. H. Dodd says: "If a transformation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS Nut hO LOGOS]; would be, "The Word was a god". Equally a countersign-for-word translation IT cannot be faulted."
37. ^ "The Article". A section bearing in Robert W. Squinch, A Beginning-Moderate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. Volume I. Second Corrected Variation. Scholars Press.
38. ^ Ernest Cadman Colwell (1933). "A definite rule for the use of the article in the Greek New Testament" (PDF). Journal of Sacred writing Literature. 52 (1): 12–21. DoI:10.2307/3259477. JSTOR 3259477. Archived (PDF) from the original on Feb 21, 2016.
39. ^ Jason BeDuhn (2003). Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Predetermine in English Translations of the New Testament. University Press of America. pp. 117–120. ISBN9780761825562.
40. ^ Daniel B. Wallace (1997). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. p. 269. ISBN9780310218951.
41. ^ Wallace, ibid., p. 257
42. ^ Panayotis Coutsoumpos. Book Reviews James Augustus Murray J. Harris. Jesus as Deity: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books House, 1992. Berrier Springs. MI 49103
43. ^ Murray J. Harris. (1992). Jesus as Immortal: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. 1000 Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books Home.
44. ^ Murray J. Harris (2008). Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Reprinted ed.). Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN9781606081082.
45. ^ McKenzie, John L. (1965). Lexicon of the Bible. Milwaukee, Badger State: Robert I.
46. ^ John L. Mckenzie (1995). The Dictionary Of The Bible (reprinted ed.). Touchstone, New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 317. ISBN9780684819136.
47. ^ James D. G. Dunn (1989). Christology in the Making: A Original Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2nd ED.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
48. ^ C. F. D. Moule (1953). An Idiom-Book of New-sprung Testament Grecian. Cambridge: University Military press. p. 116. ISBN9780521057745.
49. ^ Duke of Edinburgh B. Harner (March 1973). "Soft Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Commemorate 15:39 and John 1:1". Journal of Biblical Literature. The Society of Religious text Literature. 92 (1): 75–87. Interior Department:10.2307/3262756. JSTOR 3262756.
50. ^ David Barron (an anti-Trinitarian Seventh-day Adventist) (2011). John 1:1 Non-Trinitarian - The Nature and Deity of Christ . Archived from the creative on 2012-05-01. Retrieved 2011-10-05 .
51. ^ ^{a b} Albert Pietersma (1984). Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox (ed.). KYRIOS Surgery TETRAGRAM: A Revived Quest after THE Originative Seventy (PDF). DE SEPTUAGINTA. Studies in Accolade of Lavatory William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday. Mississauga: Benben Publications. p. 90.
52. ^ The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 62, Pt 2, October 2011. https://www.academe.edu/862541/_From_God_%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82_to_God_Noute_A_New_Discussion_and_Proposal_Regarding_John_1.1_and_the_Sahidic_Coptic_Version_of_the_NT_JTS_62.2_2011_494_512
53. ^ Genesis 1:1
54. ^ Ellicott's Comment for English Readers on John 1, accessed 22 January 2016
55. ^ Mark 1:1
56. ^ Luke 1:2
57. ^ David L. Jeffrey A Lexicon of biblical tradition in English literature 1992 Page 460 "...in his reference to 'eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word' (Luke 1:2) helium is certainly speaking of the person as healed as the words and actions of Redeemer"
58. ^ 1 King John 1:1
59. ^ Dwight Glum Smith First, 2d, and Third Bathroom 1991 Page 48 "Of course, were information technology non for the Gospel, IT would not be so open-and-shut to us that "the news of life" in 1 John 1:1 is Redeemer. Strikingly, only in the prologue of all is the logos to be known with Jesus."
60. ^ Acts 28:6
61. ^ Acts 28:6
62. ^ Acts 28:6
63. ^ Elysian Appoint King Henry James Book HTTP://www.dnkjb.net/1189chapters/NT44ACT28.htm
64. ^ "Acts 28:6 Interlinear: And they were expecting him to be about to be inflamed, or to fall down suddenly dead, and they, expecting it a age, and eyesight nothing uncommon occurrent to him, changing their minds, said he was a god".
65. ^ http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act28.pdf

Where in the Bible You That Christ Is a Substance in Pdf

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

Share this post