Kiemelt bejegyzés

1. The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty

The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty Who is the real God? A tri nity of persons (The Trinity) or just one person, the F at h...

Monday, 3 October 2016

137. Anarthrous construction of John 1:1 and It's Meaning

Anarthrous construction of John 1:1 and It's Meaning 

"en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos" John 1:1 in ancient Greek

About the word anarthrous an·ar·throus (n-ärthrs) adj. 1. Linguistics Occurring without an article. Used especially of Greek nouns. [From Greek anarthros, not articulated : an-, without; see a-1 + arthron, joint; see ar- in Indo-European roots.] We could understand the anarthrous meaning of John 1:1 through a simple substitution of words. If we substitute a word of a proposition with one of the common ground words the construction of the proposition will be the same. For example: "In my bag I have two apples." "In my bag I have two plums." Now, what we will have if we substitute some words from John 1:1? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Let's see: in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god Compare now with this substitution: in the beginning was the women and the women was with man and the women was man Technically the substituted proposition shows us some very interesting things, the nature of woman. She was also a "man" in her human nature. That is the meaning of the non substituted John 1:1 If we compare John 1:1 with 2Peter 1:4, what we will say about our future nature (if we accept truly and faithfully the heavenly calling)? "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." We will have "the divine nature" as our Lord Jesus have from the beginning, when he was with his Father. So, we will be God or Jesus, because our "divine nature"? No, not at all. This word "god" could be used in both way: - as a term for a descriptive title of God, the Father Almighty and - as a term for a similar nature as God have Conclusion: In John 1:1 we have both terms, but in the case of the Logos, we have an anarthrous construction not an articular construction and in this case the anarthrous construction emphasizes the nature of the Logos and is not a term for a descriptive title of God. So, John 1:1 shows us that the Logos was not God the Father himself, just has the same nature as his Father. Is not about a second or lesser "god", is about nature. If the Son is a "son"... If the Son is a "son"... Trinitarians, like Adam Clarke, admits, if Lord Jesus is a "son" of God, according to what means "a son" in literal sense, he must be "originated", with beginning, without knowledge, and so, connected to God through obedience and subordinate to God. This is what we as non-trinitarians strongly believe. What should know oneness "Jesus only", Trinitarians, Unitarians, etc. about the word "god" from John 1:1 part c "and god was the word"? Many people believe in "God's incarnation" (oneness "Jesus only", Trinitarians, etc.) or in God's literal words - as God's plan incarnation (Unitarians, Socinians, Christadelphians, etc.) because they don't understand John 1:1 part c "and god the word was" and they do this because not understand a very simple way of saying. For example Satan is "the god (the same word like in John 1:1 part c) of this age", according to 2Corinthians 4:4. Satan is God, like the Father, or just "god"? Again, Peter was named "satan" by Jesus, according to Matthew.16:23. Is Peter Satan, the Devil or just "satan"? When in John 1:1 part c our Lord Jesus is named "god" is in this way of saying: John 10: 25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.” 31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. What is the problem with the word "god" from John 1:1 part c? This word (god) could be used or was used just only in connection with God Almighty? No! I don't know why it is so hard for Trinitarians and Unitarians to accept an apart way of saying? The first man, Adam, after his earthly nature was named "man" (which means a kind of soil), and of course his sons are all named after his nature: man. If the sons of Adam have the earthly, Adam-like, Adam-nature, why the heavenly Son of God could not have the heavenly God-like, God (Divine)-nature? The sons of Adam are not Adam, so, the son of God are not God. Of course, when the Son of God came in this world he put down his God-nature, and put up the Adam-nature, so, he became a simple man, like the first man, Adam, special, pure and without sin. If we understand right John 1:1 part c, the whole message of John 1:1 is so simple, so wonderful, so true: God have a heavenly Son (son in literal meaning, see please Hebrews 1:3), who have the same nature as his Father. This Son came down from heaven, not God, nor a "God's plan". Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know! In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his (nick)name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy) Note that his nickname is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God, not God himself.


1. The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty
2. He is "Yehowah": God's holy name
3. The story of The rich man and the beggar Lazarus: A fake, a literal history or a parable?
See why is a fake...
Try with Google Translate from Romanian

No comments:

Post a Comment