John 1:1, the word was "a god."

[onewithhim]

Does anyone here have the list of Bible versions that say of John 1:1c "the word was a god"? I know there are several.

[Difflugia]

The phrase Ego eimi holds no mystical significance within the Scriptures.

That's an interesting assertion that you haven't supported.

It is simply a Trinitarian myth, akin to numerous other tales that stem from the philosophical concepts they've sought to weave into the sacred scriptures since the advent of Catholicism in human history.

Another unsupported claim? Knock me over with a feather!

If it's a myth, it was a prevalent one, predating the orthodox codification of the Trinity. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen all connected Jesus with the voice from the burning bush. You can download a searchable PDF of all nine volumes of The Ante-Nicene Fathers at archive.org.

[Difflugia]

These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:

(1) “I HAVE BEEN” - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible
(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible
(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).
(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock
(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson
(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament
(17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)

Of the seventeen translations you say agree with you, ten are acknowledged paraphrases, two are translated from Syriac instead of Greek, and one is just a footnote. So you've found four individual translators that think a more-or-less literal translation should match yours?

[Bible_Student]

The phrase Ego eimi holds no mystical significance within the Scriptures.

That's an interesting assertion that you haven't supported.

It is simply a Trinitarian myth, akin to numerous other tales that stem from the philosophical concepts they've sought to weave into the sacred scriptures since the advent of Catholicism in human history.

Another unsupported claim? Knock me over with a feather!...

I just logged now in the forum to tell you that your attempts to discredit forum members who have different information than you, are futile. It only reveals aspects of your own personality.

If you want to share information you have on a topic, why do you insist on attacking other forum members? Just share the information and let readers draw their own conclusions.

If you were to research the Bible on your own, you wouldn't have to demand from others who share biblical information to provide support for what they say, because you would know just the same they share with you.

Anyway, thank you for reading my posts and have an excellent week.

[tygger2]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #111]

Justin Martyr
Christians indeed reject the false pagan gods, but, [Justin] goes on to say, they do not deny the true God, who is the Father of justice and chastity and of all other virtues, and who will have nothing to do with that which is evil. He then says, "Both him {The Father, God alone} and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, because we honor {them?} in reason and truth." As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshiped {but see the WORSHIP study} by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit. The sequence in which the beings that are worshiped are mentioned (God the Father, Christ, the {OTHER} angels, the Spirit) is noteworthy. - pp. 43, 44, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.

Respected church historian, Robert M. Grant (trinitarian), likewise notes concerning the above:

“[Justin] ... identifies the God whom Christians worship as ‘most true and Father of justice.... And he goes on to speak of reverencing and worshiping ‘the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the army of other good angels who follow and resemble him, as well as the prophetic spirit.’” - p. 59 [quoting from “The First Apology of Justin,” Ch. VI]. “This is why Justin could place the ‘army of angels’ ahead of the ‘prophetic spirit,’ as we have seen: for him the Spirit was not ... personal [in fact Grant calls the Spirit ‘it’ - p. 63].” - p. 62, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.

Notice how worship (or ‘obeisance’) is given to the Son “and the host of other good angels.” Again Justin Martyr calls the Son, the Word, an angel!

[tygger2]

[Replying to tygger2 in post #114]

Ireneaus:

“... neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme .... the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow ... their testimonies to this effect.” (ANF, 1:422, ‘Against Heresies’)
* * * *
“Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets ... which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him.” (ANF, 1:428, ‘Against Heresies’)
* * * *
“And that the whole range of the doctrine of the Apostles proclaimed one and the same God ... That He was the Maker of all things, that He was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the God of glory, - they who wish may learn from the very words and acts of the Apostles, and may contemplate the fact that God is one, above whom is no other.” (ANF, 1:434, ‘Against Heresies’)
* * * *
“Those, therefore, who delivered up their souls to death for Christ's Gospel .... To the Jews {who already knew the one true God of the Bible, Jehovah, the Father}, indeed, [they proclaimed] that the Jesus who was crucified by them was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, and that He has received from His Father an eternal kingdom in Israel, as I have pointed out; but to the Greeks {who did NOT yet know the one true God of the Bible} they preached one God who made all things, and, Jesus Christ His Son.” (ANF, 1:435, ‘Against Heresies’) Material within special brackets { } supplied by me.
* * * *

Notice that Ireneaus, above, teaches us that the very first Christians did not teach a new understanding of God to the Jews. Why? Because they already knew the God of the Bible was the Father. But to the Greeks, who did not know the God of the Bible, they also had to teach that the one God is the Father!

“For faith, which has respect to our Master, endures unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father.” (ANF, 1:399-400, ‘Against Heresies’)

[tygger2]

[Replying to tygger2 in post #115]

Origen:

Trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise admits:

‘Origen, too, drew a sharp distinction between theos and ho theos. As theos, the Son is not only distinct from ('numerically distinct') but also inferior to the Father who is ho theos and autotheos (i.e. God in an absolute sense).’ - p. 36, Jesus as God, Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1992.

The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion says:

“Origen himself will downgrade the Logos [‘downgraded’ in relation to God only] in calling it ‘second god’ (Against Celsus, 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos, ‘the God’ [with the article].” - p. 15, Vol. 9, Macmillan Publ., 1987.

In fact, Origen specifically commented on John 1:1c which modern English-speaking trinitarians often translate as: “And the Word was God.” Yes, Origen, whose knowledge of NT Greek (“the language of the New Testament was his mother tongue”) was probably greater than any other Bible scholar, shows us that this verse should be properly rendered: “And the Word was a god.” ! - ANF, 10:323. (A thirteenth century manuscript seems to be the earliest extant source of Origen’s Commentary on John.)

Trinitarian Latourette also says that “Origen held that God is one, and is the Father” - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.

Origen writes:
there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. - ANF 10:321-322.
Yes, Origen calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:

“the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men”- p. 568, vol. 4, ANF.

These creatures were also called gods (in a proper, scriptural sense but clearly subordinate to God himself)! - ANF, 10:323.

[tygger2]

[Replying to tygger2 in post #116]


Tertullian, too, like the other Ante-Nicene Fathers, taught that Prov. 8:22-30 relates the words of the Son of God, Christ (speaking as “Wisdom”):

“‘At first the Lord {Jehovah} created me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;’ that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence.” - ANF, 3:601, ‘Against Praxeas’.

And the trinitarian, Catholic work Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity notes that, even though later writers used some of Tertullian’s terminology (e.g., substantia) to describe the Trinity, it appears that Tertullian did not use them in that sense:

“hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from [Tertullian’s] usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.”

[tygger2]

Clement of Rome
(wrote c. 96 A.D.)

The writing of Clement of Rome (c. 96 A. D.) to the Corinthians (1 Clement) is:
“the earliest and most valuable surviving example of Christian literature outside the New Testament” and “was widely known and held in very great esteem by the early Church. It was publicly read in numerous churches, and regarded as being almost on a level with the inspired scriptures.” - pp. 17, 22, Early Christian Writings, Staniforth, Dorset Press, New York.

Clement, St., Pope of Rome (ca. 92-101) .... St. Clement is looked upon as the first of the ‘Apostolic Fathers.’ - p. 177, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.

So what did this famous Apostolic Father tell us about the essential knowledge of God?

[In the early days of Christianity] one believed in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but no tie was available to unite them together. They were mentioned separately. Prayers were addressed, for example, to the Father who ‘alone,’ according to Clement of Rome, ‘was God.’ - Revue d’ Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses (Review of History and of Religious Literature), May-June, 1906, pp. 222, 223.

Yes, Clement of Rome wrote:

“And we will ask, with instancy of prayer and supplication, that the Creator of the universe may guard intact unto the end the number that hath been numbered of His elect throughout the whole world, through his beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of the glory of His Name.

“[Grant unto us, Lord {Jehovah, Father}] that we may set our hope on Thy Name {Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, KJV, Ex. 3:15, NEB, LB, MLB} which is the primal source of all creation ... that we may know thee, who alone abides Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy ... Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.” - 59:2-4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, noted trinitarian scholars. [Information in special brackets { } added by me.]

“Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.” - 42:1, 2, Lightfoot and Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers.
………………………………………..

Not only is this the earliest and most important of the early Christian sources, but the earliest existing manuscript for it is probably the oldest of any of the other early Church writers.
[Replying to tygger2 in post #117]

[Difflugia]

The phrase Ego eimi holds no mystical significance within the Scriptures.

That's an interesting assertion that you haven't supported.

It is simply a Trinitarian myth, akin to numerous other tales that stem from the philosophical concepts they've sought to weave into the sacred scriptures since the advent of Catholicism in human history.

Another unsupported claim? Knock me over with a feather!...

I just logged now in the forum to tell you that your attempts to discredit forum members who have different information than you, are futile. It only reveals aspects of your own personality.

Asking you to support your debate position is an attempt to "discredit" you? I think that says more about you and your debate positions than it does about me. In fact, it looks like history is repeating itself.

If you want to share information you have on a topic, why do you insist on attacking other forum members? Just share the information and let readers draw their own conclusions.

This is a debate site. Telling you why you're wrong is par for the course.

If you were to research the Bible on your own, you wouldn't have to demand from others who share biblical information to provide support for what they say, because you would know just the same they share with you.

The kind of research materials that I value support the positions they take.

[Difflugia]

Notice how worship (or ‘obeisance’) is given to the Son “and the host of other good angels.” Again Justin Martyr calls the Son, the Word, an angel!

Notice that Ireneaus, above, teaches us that the very first Christians did not teach a new understanding of God to the Jews.

“hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from [Tertullian’s] usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.”

You're making my point for me. I'm not arguing here that John is trinitarian, I'm arguing that John used ἐγὼ εἰμί to connect Jesus to the burning bush of Exodus 3. The counterargument being made is that the claim is somehow a trinitarian conspiracy, but that can't be true if it predates trinitarian orthodoxy and was made by Church Fathers that weren't themselves trinitarian.