The Deity of Christ

[tinsnail]

Yes, I would like to see him break this down in Greek for us before I respond. The onus is on tinsnail to provide the evidence for his assertions. This should be interesting.

I just looked at the greek text. I see nothing that requires a switch from "he" to "it"

Here is the Concordant Literal translation which omits opinion...it justs gives the direct literal english translation of each greek word:

Jn 14:16 "And I shall be asking the Father, and He will be giving you another consoler, that it, indeed, may be with you for the eon --

17 the spirit of truth, which the world can not get, for it is not beholding it, neither is knowing it. Yet you know it, for it is remaining with you and will be in you.

The HS is referred to as "It"

[Guest shiloh357]

Another common example is John 1:2. The NIV says: He was with God in the beginning. The KJV says: The same was with God in the beginning. The KJV is correct, as the greek word supports "the same" or "it". The one example of "he" changes the entire meaning of the first half of Jn 1.

If you use He in that case, then "the word" becomes a person. If you use "the same" or "it", the the word remains what it truly is...and that is the ideas, thought and concepts of God that are held inside or expressed. Consider this. If "the word of God" is really just his words, then John 1 is all about God the Father until verse 14. God is the light.....

The problem with this is that "the same" (houtos) is linking v. 2 with the previous statement that the Word is God. God is not an it. The Word is God, so the Word cannot be an it, either. "The same," meaning, "The Word" was in the beginning with God." On down v. 14, this "Word" became flesh. The Word which was God and was with God is a person who be came flesh.

More importantly the Word, (houtos of v.2) is the Creator in v. 3. He is the one by whom God created the worlds. John uses a 3rd person personal pronoun (autos) and this correct because creation is a personal, not an impersonal act. It requires skill, thought, intent, design, etc. All of which are personal traits. To render "it" would not be consistent with the text.

There is another very good reason why "it" does not work: God designed the Bible so that no one single verse or passage contains all of the truth on a given subject. Not only that, but God has a habit of repeating Himself. He says the same things more than once, but does so in a little different manner for clarity. In John chapter 1, we see that the Word plays a major role in creation. John tells us that everything that is made was created/made by the Word

In Colossians, Paul tells that everything both visible and invisible was created by Jesus:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

(Colossians 1:15-17)

He also tells us that Jesus preexisted all things. Jesus preexisted the created order. The term firstborn does not mean that Jesus born or created, but speaks of rank or preeminence. It refers to Jesus preeminence over all the created order. Paul is very careful to separate Jesus from creation. Jesus is above, before and thus separate from the universe He created.

The writer of Hebrews, speaks of Jesus this way:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:1-3)

From these 2 passages we see the following about Jesus. Jesus is:

1. The visible image of the invisble God;

2. The express image of God's person;

3. The Glory of God;

4. The "Firstborn" (preeminent One) over all creation;

5. The One by whom God created the worlds and all things visible or invisible (cf. John 1:3);

6. Preexisted all creation;

7. Separate from creation;

8. Personally upholds all creation by the Word of His Power;

9. Purged our sins;

10. Is now seated at the right hand of Majesty. This is an anthropromorphism. God is a spirit and omnipresent and so He doesn't have a "right hand." It simply states that Jesus has Divine authority and is co-equal with the Father, as God.

These are not the only two verses I could give. Enough is said in the New Testament about Jesus being the One through whom all things were created, to defy any notion that John 1 is incorrect in referencing the Word as, "He." When you bring everything in the Bible has to say both Old AND New Testaments, you see God calling Himself the Creator, and the New Testament identifying the Creator as none other than Jesus, Himself.

Nothing was created by an impersonal "it." The very concept of "creation" defies such a notion.

Here is the Concordant Literal translation which omits opinion...it justs gives the direct literal english translation of each greek word:

Jn 14:16 "And I shall be asking the Father, and He will be giving you another consoler, that it, indeed, may be with you for the eon --

17 the spirit of truth, which the world can not get, for it is not beholding it, neither is knowing it. Yet you know it, for it is remaining with you and will be in you.

The HS is referred to as "It"

The problem once again, is that this "version" you are citing makes errors regarding the use of the pronoun, autos. Concept of a comforter is personal, not impersonal. It is faulty grammar to refer to a comforter, one who will dwell in us as an "it."

Let's look at how erroneous the "Concordant Literal Translation is in other areas dealing with the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Here is John 15:26 in the KJV:

And when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me.

(John 15:26)

Here it is in the CLT:

26 "Now, whenever the consoler which I shall be sending you from the Father may be coming, the spirit of truth which is going out from the Father, that will be testifying concerning Me.

Now here is the problem... that last phrase "he shall testify of me..." The word "he" in Greek is ekeinosand is a masculine pronoun. So "he" is the correct rendering. If John wanted to say "that" he would have used the neuter ekeino

Let's look at another one. Here is John 16:3-4 in the KJV

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

(John 16:13-14)

Now here is how it is rendered in the CLT:

13 Yet whenever that may be coming -- the spirit of truth --it will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself, but whatsoever it should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it be informing you.

14 That will be glorifying Me, seeing that of Mine will it be getting, and informing you.

We find the use of the same masculine pronoun ekeinosused twice. So it is simply sloppy translating to render a masculine pronoun as "it."

From the above two passages in John we see the following things about the Person of the Holy Spirit:

1. He is a comforter;

2. He will dwell in us;

3. He will testify of Jesus;

4. He will guide us into all truth;

5. He will speak, but not of Himself;

6. He will speak whatever He hears;

7. He will show us things to come;

8. He will glorify Jesus;

9. He will show us that which He has received.

So just from the description of what the Holy Spirit DOES, "it" simply is not a logical translation. An "it" does not literally speak or hear, or comfort, or testify, or indwell us, etc. The attributes in these three verses alone defy the assertion that the Holy Spirit is not a person. The New Testament reveals a Holy Spirit who speaks to us, in the literal, absolute sense. Maybe not audibly, but He does speak to us. An "it" cannot do that.

The Concordant Literal Translation is not a reliable translation at all. Just because you can find something that purports itself to be a "translation" does not mean it is a good resource to bank on.

[tinsnail]

The problem with this is that "the same" (houtos) is linking v. 2 with the previous statement that the Word is God. God is not an it. The Word is God, so the Word cannot be an it, either. "The same," meaning, "The Word" was in the beginning with God." On down v. 14, this "Word" became flesh. The Word which was God and was with God is a person who be came flesh.

Shiloh,

You have made a terrific observation here! God is not an it! Now you need to stop and reflect on this. The word IS an "it". How does this fit? If you come from Trinitarian/Oneness theology, you must wrestle around it. If you let all previous teaching set on the shelf and ponder it, there is an answer. The problem is that the answer is too obvious. It hides right in front of our eyes, which are blinded by theologians.

koine greek..the common language says that LOGOS means WORD. The same words that you and I use. It is "a thought or idea, held inside or expressed."

Strangely, that is what it means here, as far as I see. God is spirit. His words are spirit. His words or ideas have always been with him. In this case the only part of Jesus that can be captured here, is that God always had Jesus in mind, when creating the world. The word was God, just equivocates his thoughts with his nature.

When the Word was made flesh....I see that as Jesus fully living out..expressing...manifesting the word of God to the world....by an act of his will. Not by intrinsic nature.

[tinsnail]

Another common example is John 1:2. The NIV says: He was with God in the beginning. The KJV says: The same was with God in the beginning. The KJV is correct, as the greek word supports "the same" or "it". The one example of "he" changes the entire meaning of the first half of Jn 1.

If you use He in that case, then "the word" becomes a person. If you use "the same" or "it", the the word remains what it truly is...and that is the ideas, thought and concepts of God that are held inside or expressed. Consider this. If "the word of God" is really just his words, then John 1 is all about God the Father until verse 14. God is the light.....

The problem with this is that "the same" (houtos) is linking v. 2 with the previous statement that the Word is God. God is not an it. The Word is God, so the Word cannot be an it, either. "The same," meaning, "The Word" was in the beginning with God." On down v. 14, this "Word" became flesh. The Word which was God and was with God is a person who be came flesh.

More importantly the Word, (houtos of v.2) is the Creator in v. 3. He is the one by whom God created the worlds. John uses a 3rd person personal pronoun (autos) and this correct because creation is a personal, not an impersonal act. It requires skill, thought, intent, design, etc. All of which are personal traits. To render "it" would not be consistent with the text.

There is another very good reason why "it" does not work: God designed the Bible so that no one single verse or passage contains all of the truth on a given subject. Not only that, but God has a habit of repeating Himself. He says the same things more than once, but does so in a little different manner for clarity. In John chapter 1, we see that the Word plays a major role in creation. John tells us that everything that is made was created/made by the Word

In Colossians, Paul tells that everything both visible and invisible was created by Jesus:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

(Colossians 1:15-17)

He also tells us that Jesus preexisted all things. Jesus preexisted the created order. The term firstborn does not mean that Jesus born or created, but speaks of rank or preeminence. It refers to Jesus preeminence over all the created order. Paul is very careful to separate Jesus from creation. Jesus is above, before and thus separate from the universe He created.

The writer of Hebrews, speaks of Jesus this way:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:1-3)

From these 2 passages we see the following about Jesus. Jesus is:

1. The visible image of the invisble God;

2. The express image of God's person;

3. The Glory of God;

4. The "Firstborn" (preeminent One) over all creation;

5. The One by whom God created the worlds and all things visible or invisible (cf. John 1:3);

6. Preexisted all creation;

7. Separate from creation;

8. Personally upholds all creation by the Word of His Power;

9. Purged our sins;

10. Is now seated at the right hand of Majesty. This is an anthropromorphism. God is a spirit and omnipresent and so He doesn't have a "right hand." It simply states that Jesus has Divine authority and is co-equal with the Father, as God.

These are not the only two verses I could give. Enough is said in the New Testament about Jesus being the One through whom all things were created, to defy any notion that John 1 is incorrect in referencing the Word as, "He." When you bring everything in the Bible has to say both Old AND New Testaments, you see God calling Himself the Creator, and the New Testament identifying the Creator as none other than Jesus, Himself.

Nothing was created by an impersonal "it." The very concept of "creation" defies such a notion.

Here is the Concordant Literal translation which omits opinion...it justs gives the direct literal english translation of each greek word:

Jn 14:16 "And I shall be asking the Father, and He will be giving you another consoler, that it, indeed, may be with you for the eon --

17 the spirit of truth, which the world can not get, for it is not beholding it, neither is knowing it. Yet you know it, for it is remaining with you and will be in you.

The HS is referred to as "It"

The problem once again, is that this "version" you are citing makes errors regarding the use of the pronoun, autos. Concept of a comforter is personal, not impersonal. It is faulty grammar to refer to a comforter, one who will dwell in us as an "it."

Let's look at how erroneous the "Concordant Literal Translation is in other areas dealing with the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Here is John 15:26 in the KJV:

And when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me.

(John 15:26)

Here it is in the CLT:

26 "Now, whenever the consoler which I shall be sending you from the Father may be coming, the spirit of truth which is going out from the Father, that will be testifying concerning Me.

Now here is the problem... that last phrase "he shall testify of me..." The word "he" in Greek is ekeinosand is a masculine pronoun. So "he" is the correct rendering. If John wanted to say "that" he would have used the neuter ekeino

Let's look at another one. Here is John 16:3-4 in the KJV

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

(John 16:13-14)

Now here is how it is rendered in the CLT:

13 Yet whenever that may be coming -- the spirit of truth --it will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself, but whatsoever it should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it be informing you.

14 That will be glorifying Me, seeing that of Mine will it be getting, and informing you.

We find the use of the same masculine pronoun ekeinosused twice. So it is simply sloppy translating to render a masculine pronoun as "it."

From the above two passages in John we see the following things about the Person of the Holy Spirit:

1. He is a comforter;

2. He will dwell in us;

3. He will testify of Jesus;

4. He will guide us into all truth;

5. He will speak, but not of Himself;

6. He will speak whatever He hears;

7. He will show us things to come;

8. He will glorify Jesus;

9. He will show us that which He has received.

So just from the description of what the Holy Spirit DOES, "it" simply is not a logical translation. An "it" does not literally speak or hear, or comfort, or testify, or indwell us, etc. The attributes in these three verses alone defy the assertion that the Holy Spirit is not a person. The New Testament reveals a Holy Spirit who speaks to us, in the literal, absolute sense. Maybe not audibly, but He does speak to us. An "it" cannot do that.

The Concordant Literal Translation is not a reliable translation at all. Just because you can find something that purports itself to be a "translation" does not mean it is a good resource to bank on.

If "it" is not logical to you, then why did God choose "it"? For me it is totally logical. So the question doubles....if you were an outside observer, would you choose the interpetation that came from what was spoken, or a translation that comes from what some believe should have been spoken?

Cliff

[Guest shiloh357]

You have made a terrific observation here! God is not an it! Now you need to stop and reflect on this. The word IS an "it".

John says The Word was with God and the Word WAS God. If God is not an it, and the Word is also God, then Word is not an "it" either. The Word is a Person because God is a Person and Word is God.

How does this fit? If you come from Trinitarian/Oneness theology, you must wrestle around it. If you let all previous teaching set on the shelf and ponder it, there is an answer. The problem is that the answer is too obvious. It hides right in front of our eyes, which are blinded by theologians.

Still waiting for the research that actually demonstrates this.

koine greek..the common language says that LOGOS means WORD. The same words that you and I use. It is "a thought or idea, held inside or expressed."

Strangely, that is what it means here, as far as I see.

And YOU are an authority on the manuscript evidence?

His words are spirit. His words or ideas have always been with him. In this case the only part of Jesus that can be captured here, is that God always had Jesus in mind, when creating the world. The word was God, just equivocates his thoughts with his nature.

This falls apart when we cross reference John 1 with other passages of Scripture that address the issues raised by John 1:1-3. Your argument relies on only examining John 1 on its own with no other corroborating passages. Yet even the wording of John defies much of what you say.

When the Word was made flesh....I see that as Jesus fully living out..expressing...manifesting the word of God to the world....by an act of his will. Not by intrinsic nature.

Sorry, but I am not really interested in what you think. I am interested in any bonefide research, which has been requested previously and not provided.

[Guest shiloh357]

If "it" is not logical to you, then why did God choose "it"? For me it is totally logical. So the question doubles....if you were an outside observer, would you choose the interpetation that came from what was spoken, or a translation that comes from what some believe should have been spoken?

God didn't choose it. YOU did. You are basically applying sloppy hermeneutics to support your unbiblical premise.

[tinsnail]

As far as "word" being an it....

Jn 6:63 The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

I did not state that I am the expert on anything. As fas as greek goes, this one is simple. I provided the standard, common greek of the day definition for "Logos"...it is a word.

It is the theologians that had to make it be a person of the trinity. I am stating that another viable view is possible. Your logic is very interesting. Scripture calls the HS and the word..both "it", and you declare that it is sloppy translation to agree that what scripture says is correct.

I always thought logic was an essential component of an arguement. I prefer an arguement which supports the original texts. If it does not make sense, I let it be until I can see a fit.

[Guest shiloh357]

As far as "word" being an it....

Jn 6:63 The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

I did not state that I am the expert on anything. As fas as greek goes, this one is simple. I provided the standard, common greek of the day definition for "Logos"...it is a word.

Sorry, but you have demonstrated that you really do not have any research to actually support your assertion.

As for John 6:63, Logos is not being used. "The words" in John 6:63 is ta rēmata, not "logos." It is the same use of rēma as found in John 3:34; John 8:47; John 17:8.

It is the theologians that had to make it be a person of the trinity. I am stating that another viable view is possible.

I realize that. The problem again, that you don't have any research. I have no reason to accept your word for something. You don't have any real knowledge of Greek. That is for sure.

Your logic is very interesting. Scripture calls the HS and the word..both "it", and you declare that it is sloppy translation to agree that what scripture says is correct.

The problem is that the Scriptures DONT call the Holy Spirit "it." That is you talking. It your mishandling of the Scripture I am calling sloppy.

I always thought logic was an essential component of an arguement.

You have provided no credible logic. In fact you have contradicted sound logic. I have already shown that the characteristics of the Holy Spirit And the Word defy the notion of them simply being an "it" AND I have used corroborating Scritpture to do itl. You have provided nothing in the way of genuine research that supports your assertion. You just keep repeating the same empty assertions over and over as if that actually constitutes a response.

[tinsnail]

As far as "word" being an it....

Jn 6:63 The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

I did not state that I am the expert on anything. As fas as greek goes, this one is simple. I provided the standard, common greek of the day definition for "Logos"...it is a word.

Sorry, but you have demonstrated that you really do not have any research to actually support your assertion.

As for John 6:63, Logos is not being used. "The words" in John 6:63 is ta rēmata, not "logos." It is the same use of rēma as found in John 3:34; John 8:47; John 17:8.

It is the theologians that had to make it be a person of the trinity. I am stating that another viable view is possible.

I realize that. The problem again, that you don't have any research. I have no reason to accept your word for something. You don't have any real knowledge of Greek. That is for sure.

Your logic is very interesting. Scripture calls the HS and the word..both "it", and you declare that it is sloppy translation to agree that what scripture says is correct.

The problem is that the Scriptures DONT call the Holy Spirit "it." That is you talking. It your mishandling of the Scripture I am calling sloppy.

I always thought logic was an essential component of an arguement.

You have provided no credible logic. In fact you have contradicted sound logic. I have already shown that the characteristics of the Holy Spirit And the Word defy the notion of them simply being an "it" AND I have used corroborating Scritpture to do itl. You have provided nothing in the way of genuine research that supports your assertion. You just keep repeating the same empty assertions over and over as if that actually constitutes a response.

I think there is a substantial misunderstanding here. I did not decide to call the HS and the word as "it". It is in the text of scripture. God's spirit can be called it or he. They bothe refer to the spirit of God or the the sender of the spirit. Nowhere in scripture is the HS called a person. Both he and it are acceptable, and consistent with the spirit being the breath of God....since spirit actually means breath, also.

The only reason to mistransl;ate scripture by changing the it to he, is because the translator requires that it make sense within a trintiarian viewpoint.

[Guest shiloh357]

I think there is a substantial misunderstanding here. I did not decide to call the HS and the word as "it". It is in the text of scripture.

The problem is your fundamental lack of understanding regarding personal pronouns in Greek.

Nowhere in scripture is the HS called a person.

Not in so many words, but the Holy Spirit is characterized by personal traits. The Holy Spirit can be communed with, insutled, grieved, lied to, and can act as a comforter, intercessor and guide. The Holy Spirit can think, search out mysteries, speak and can give gifts. Those are personal attributes that cannot be ascribed to an impersonal thing or whatever. So when those those attributes appear in passage where the Greek word autos (a pronoun which can, in certain contexts be rendered "it"), autos is rendered as "He" not "it."

Secondly, the Concordant Literal Translation you offered up as evidence mistranslated the masucline pronoun ekeinos as "it" when it is clearly not the neuter form (ekeino).

Honestly, you don't have much to go on. You keep making same assertions but providing nothing in the way of research.

Both he and it are acceptable, and consistent with the spirit being the breath of God....since spirit actually means breath, also.

Pneuma is neuter and is rendered that way depending on usage. The problem is that people forget that word usage is in the long term, more important than lexical/dictionary meanings. Words, even in English are used outsdie of their primary meaning and this usage is understood in terms of the context in which a word is used.

We use, for example the word "love" in a variety of ways. We love our children, we love football, we love ice cream and we love our pets. But simply commonsense tells us that we don't love our dog the same we love icecream. It is a matter of context.

The same holds true pneuma. It can refer to the impersonal "breath" of God (corresponding with the Hebrew "ruach" a masculine word for wind/breath). It can also, depending on the context, be referring to the person of the Holy Spirit.

The only reason to mistransl;ate scripture by changing the it to he, is because the translator requires that it make sense within a trintiarian viewpoint.

That is an accusation that places the burden of proof squarely on you. If you are going to accuse translator of errant behavior in their traslation, then the onus is on you to provide the mansuscript evidence. If you can't, it is just an empty accusation and will simply be ignored and not taken seriously.