70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

[Shermana]

An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.

Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?

[Sum1sGruj]

If by "Early" Christians you mean 150 years after Jesus died around Tertullian's time, then possibly. The word "Early Christians" needs to be re-classified for 1st, 2nd and 3rd and 4th century. It was nowhere a concept of the original Nazarene communities and was a Revolutionary apologetic in its time, conceived by Antinomian gentiles, rather than the "original Church", and even these same "Early Christians" like Origen and Arian held differing views. By the time of the 300s and the Arian debate it was like the difference between 2000 and 1700. There were also major movements like the Monarchians and Nestorians. The first Trinitarians as a group may have been the Modalists like the Sabellians. The Trinity was popular in Syncretic Egypt.

Even after Constantine first agreed to the Trinity with Nicea, the whole Imperial Family converted to Arianism, against the grain of their own empire! The Synod of Tyre overturned Nicea, and it wasn't until he died that the Council of Constantinople overturned it.

And there's also the issue of the heavily interpolated and edited works like Ignatius' epistles, and where the original writings of Iraneus went.

And all the while, what did most of the the Jews do?
They went on with Judaism and neglected Christ, and so no Jew has any room to talk about anything of other races and agendas unless they include their own as well.

The common concept of Hell is tradition. The common concept of Satan being an impending force of evil deeds is tradition. But the Trinity, when applied accurately, is not tradition, and it explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit all while affirming monotheism, which is something that your belief cannot do.

[Shermana]

How that in any way has anything to do with the subject I have no idea.

I'm sure you've heard that the original Church was entirely Jewish before, right? I don't understand why the actions of "Most" Jews has any bearing on Jews who believe, or the actual history of the church.

I seriously have no idea how your reply is in any way on track to what I said.

[Sum1sGruj]

How that in any way has anything to do with the subject I have no idea.

I'm sure you've heard that the original Church was entirely Jewish before, right? I don't understand why the actions of "Most" Jews has any bearing on Jews who believe, or the actual history of the church.

I seriously have no idea how your reply is in any way on track to what I said.

You are sitting here portraying an idea that the Trinity concept, no matter how it is put, is a false doctrine, when really, the context of the Bible demands that such a concept be reconciled with in some fashion.
You say that Jesus prayed to the Father. This is true.
But he also stated that he was the Father. This is also true.
He also speaks of the Holy Spirit. This is true as well.

Your theology cannot explain these things. You are taking in one verse and not the other, and then going on to talk about all these non-Jews who took on the Trinity concept thereafter, as if it matters.
I brought up most Jews not even adhering to Christianity because you seem to be alienating them from all your other indiscretions. Just how does one take in a concept by Jewry who do not even believe that he was the Christ?
And how does a lot of the messianic Jewry have any more authority then anyone else? They are obviously able to make mistakes just like anyone else, seeing how they saw the Adversary as simply a servant charged to to test our will. They didn't even realize the prophesy of Jesus in Scripture until after the fact. I mean, what really grants them authority simply because they are the original people? I see this a lot in your arguments.

[Shermana]

You are sitting here portraying an idea that the Trinity concept, no matter how it is put, is a false doctrine,

That is correct.

when really, the context of the Bible demands that such a concept be reconciled with in some fashion.

That is incorrect. That is your own extrascriptural presupposition.

You say that Jesus prayed to the Father. This is true.

Yes indeed.

But he also stated that he was the Father. This is also true.

That is absolutely untrue and a standard Trinitarian falsity. It is about as true as the claim "G-d helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible. Edit: The difference is that it actually implies that G-d helps those who help themselves through the general gist, whereas it never actually implies that Jesus claims to be the Father.

He also speaks of the Holy Spirit. This is true as well.

Speaking of it is not the same as being the same as.

Your theology cannot explain these things.

What is my Theology suppose to explain? Your Theology? My Theology doesn't involve outright falsities which you claim to be true like "Jesus claimed to be the Father".

You are taking in one verse and not the other,

Quite the contrary, I am taking in the fullness of the text, you simply disagree with how I interpret it as I disagree with you.

and then going on to talk about all these non-Jews who took on the Trinity concept thereafter,

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

as if it matters.

To anyone remotely interested in Bible studies, the time and date of doctrinal establishment is VERY important.

I brought up most Jews not even adhering to Christianity because you seem to be alienating them from all your other indiscretions.

I did? I think you're referring to another thread and another subject. If anything I support the Arians in this thread.

Just how does one take in a concept by Jewry who do not even believe that he was the Christ?

So you're saying only people who believe that Jesus was Christ have any say whatsoever, you should write to the various scholars and tell them this. I assume church history is also not on your list of study.

And how does a lot of the messianic Jewry have any more authority then anyone else?

In my Theology, "Messianic Jewry" (at least the early 30 A.D. ones) had mostly the correct interpretation of the "Old Testament" and the 100 A.D. ones best understood the "New". I'd give 7th day Adventists and JWs the "closest to the real thing" award, and I'd throw standard Evangelicism the Razzy prize. But they mostly are Trinitarian and essentially an extension of Evangelical funders. I am in the minority among the movement. Do you get your church history from Catholic sites?

They are obviously able to make mistakes just like anyone else,

Okay, and?

seeing how they saw the Adversary as simply a servant charged to to test our will

.

That is exactly what the Adversary is, except he is truly evil, and that's why that job was given to him.

They didn't even realize the prophesy of Jesus in Scripture until after the fact.

Who didn't, the original Nazarenes? I guess you haven't heard of the Bereans for one thing.

I mean, what really grants them authority simply because they are the original people? I see this a lot in your arguments.

Ultimately you are attempting to make this an issue of Messianic Jewry, who are mostly Trinitarian, when I am bringing up a simple issue of how to translate John 1:1c.

[Sum1sGruj]

You are sitting here portraying an idea that the Trinity concept, no matter how it is put, is a false doctrine,

That is correct.

Isaiah 43:10,11 - “You are My witnesses,� says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.�

John 5:17,18 - “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.� Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.�

John 14:9-11 - Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?�

Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,� says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.�

Now reconcile these things with your verses that are supposed to contrary the Trinity. Your argument is simply a 'moving goalpost'. I don't really see anymore reason to discuss this. I have stated that my belief in the Trinity is not as profound as it is commonly prescribed, and you still attack it without reconciliation to logic or reason. I have proven my claim, where is yours?

[Shermana]

Isaiah 43:10,11 - “You are My witnesses,� says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.�

Yes, before the Father, there was no "god", for he is the "god of the gods". There shall be none like him ever, he is the Origin of Time and Matter. The Father is the Ultimate savior, but there are humans that are called saviors as well, the word "Deliverer" is used. The Jews knew of this concept of a human savior sent by the Ultimate source of Salvation when they said "Is he the Savior"?

Nehemiah 9:27 "So you handed them over to their enemies, who oppressed them. But when they were oppressed they cried out to you. From heaven you heard them, and in your great compassion you gave them deliverers, who rescued them from the hand of their enemies."

John 5:17,18 - “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.� Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

That was their accusation against him for one thing, they also accused him of not washing his hands, their accusations. He says "The Father is greater than I am", and the word "Greater" is used for more than just positions of authority since it says that there was no one greater born of woman than John the Baptist. Second, the word "Equal" even in your interpretation in no way means "the exact same as". If I said "the two teams are equal in this matchup", that doesn't mean they are the exact same team.

John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.�

1. The word used for "Abraham was" is also used for "Will be", the use of the word "I am" is used for past tense as well. Thus, to be gramatically correct, as many Translations honestly present, Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I was". This has some similarities in French with use of "Je suis" for different tenses.

2. The grammar of the use of "I am" in Exodus 3:14 is also up to debate. Theodition's Septuagint used "I will be as I will be". The use of "I am" is in question. Either way, stating "I am", is not declaring a name. It merely implies pre-existence, which was a common 2nd Temple Jewish concept, that the Sadducees especially would have opposed. Origen was condemned for belief in the pre-existence of souls.

3. Capitalizing "I AM" is a phenomenon that is a recent attempt to copy the use of "LORD" for the actual Ineffable name. If anything, this shows a complete misunderstanding of the difference between the actual name and the name given to Moses.

John 14:9-11 - Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?�

He also says "No one has seen the Father except he who has come down from Heaven". He is the representative of the Father, many sons look practically the same as their Fathers. He represents the Father's Will.

Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,� says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.�

The Alpha and Omega even has a spurious reproduction in the KJV (and various late manuscripts) in 1:11 too. The one speaking in Revelation 22:13 is Yashua's angel, bearing a message from the Father. Yashua is the "Firstborn among Creation" and the "Last Adam". The use of "First and Last" is not exclusive as a Title as Alpha and Omega would be.

Now reconcile these things with your verses that are supposed to contrary the Trinity. Your argument is simply a 'moving goalpost'.

I already have. You act as I haven't seen those verses before when you say "Reconcile those verses that are supposed to contrary the Trinity", but I have a feeling you haven't even been to a website that lists these verses to know how to reconcile your own verses.

I don't really see anymore reason to discuss this.

I can take a guess why you don't see anymore reason to discuss this.

I have stated that my belief in the Trinity is not as profound as it is commonly prescribed

,

That's like saying "My definition of the Right Wing is not as profound as it is commonly prescribed". All it does is presuppose that you have a "simpler" definition without elaborating.

and you still attack it without reconciliation to logic or reason.

Trinitarian logic and reason you mean? (Which I suppose is an oxymoron of sorts).

I have proven my claim, where is yours?

You have definitely proven a lot, but not your claims.

[mich]

An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.

Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?

The problem with using the term "a god" seems to identify the Word as simply one of the many gods followed by pagan tribes. You do have a point concerning the use of the article since Origen wrote about this. However, Origen believed in the trinity. It seems that his explanation of the use of the article centered on the Word as being separate from God as opposed to the unitarian teaching.

Now, if we were to use the term "a god" when reading "and the Word as a god", ought we not then to rewrite the book of Genesis where it reads :

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So a god created man in his own image, in the image of a god created he him; male and female created he them.

or:

3:22
And a god said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Andre

[Shermana]

If you are referring to the use of the word "Elohim" and "El", the Majestic plural generally applies which is the use of the Singular verb for the Plural but there are a few notable exceptions such as its use for "Angels". I don't know how smoothly the concept goes from Greek to Hebrew, but the use of "ha" is sometimes used to distinguish.

However, there are in fact other gods in the OT. They simply are not THE god, the "god of the gods" (Psalm 136:2). Angels are called "gods". Samuel's soul when conjured by the Witch is called a "god". It can be tricky to know when the word means "god" or "The god", but the use of the article "Ha" usually applies. The Angels are also called "Sons of G-d" in Job. It may even have a reverse application where "ha" distinguishes "gods" like in 136:2.



The readers of John were most likely familiar with the "Logos" theology of Philo which was mainstream among Anatolian Jews. This is to state the the First Created Being was Wisdom Personified, and it was the "Foreman" and "Prototype" of the Angels and the Creation process.

[mich]

If you are referring to the use of the word "Elohim" and "El", the Majestic plural generally applies which is the use of the Singular verb for the Plural but there are a few notable exceptions such as its use for "Angels". I don't know how smoothly the concept goes from Greek to Hebrew, but the use of "ha" is sometimes used to distinguish.

However, there are in fact other gods in the OT. They simply are not THE god, the "god of the gods" (Psalm 136:2). Angels are called "gods". Samuel's soul when conjured by the Witch is called a "god". It can be tricky to know when the word means "god" or "The god", but the use of the article "Ha" usually applies. The Angels are also called "Sons of G-d" in Job. It may even have a reverse application where "ha" distinguishes "gods" like in 136:2.



The readers of John were most likely familiar with the "Logos" theology of Philo which was mainstream among Anatolian Jews. This is to state the the First Created Being was Wisdom Personified, and it was the "Foreman" and "Prototype" of the Angels and the Creation process.

Should therefore another term be used distinguishing the Word from other gods in terms of Him being the Archetype of all the gods?

Andre

[Sum1sGruj]

The correct translation of the bible does indeed speak of the Lord, and the Lord of hosts. As far as I know, the KJV is the only translation that pronounces this. It would concur that Jesus was before Abraham, and promotes that the Son is of the Father and not the Father.

But that's not really the whole picture. I actually once believed that and denounced the Trinity concept for a time, until I noticed there is another issue, the Holy Spirit.
What exactly is the Holy Spirit? It would have to be the manifestation of God Himself. I see no other logical possibility. If the quickening post-death is due to the Holy Spirit, then that must be the driving force of God Himself, and by extension, the Son as well. So while not taking to heart the common idea of the Trinity, I still believe it to the extent of triune deliverance. God simply reveals Himself in three different ways, concreting a single will driven by three counterparts.