Some notes and comments on various Biblical texts some have used to promote the doctrine of the Trinity. The main approach that will be used to arrive at a proper balanced view of these texts is based on the FACT that the Bible interprets itself.

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Some say that to translate John 1:1c as "…and the Word was a god." means that Jesus must be a false God because Isaiah 43:10 says that "Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none."

IT’S EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER – IT CAN NOT BE BOTH – BIBLE TELLS US THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE “GOD” & NO OTHER GODS EXIST.

BUT THE AUTHOR TELLS US THAT THERE IS – THAT JESUS IS ‘a god’ & the father is THE GOD” – THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE TEACHING. ALSO IN MARK 12:26-27 THE SAME WORD “kai theos” IS RENDERED AS “the GOD”  & in John’s passage it is rendered as “a god”. This is grammatically wrong. Both times the words are applied to “God” so it must be rendered SAME in ALL cases. Wouldn’t you agree? WE WILL COVER IT AT THE END OF THIS SUBJECT IN MORE DETAIL.

BEFORE WE GO ON I WILL CITE THIS PASSAGE FROM 3 OTHER BIBLE - NIV - KJV & LIFE APPLICATION SO THAT YOU CAN SEE HOW THEY RENDER IT ALSO.

NIV: "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. 2 HE WAS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING. 3 THROUGH HIM ALL THINGS WERE MADE. WITHOUT HIM NOTHING WAS MADE THAT HAS BEEN MADE. 4 IN HIM WAS LIFE, AND THAT LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN. 5 THE LIGHT SHINES IN THE DARKNESS, BUT THE DARKNESS HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD IT."

 KJV: "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. 2 THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD. 3 ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE. 4 IN HIM WAS LIFE; AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN. 5 AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT."

 LIFE APPLICATION: "IN THE BEGINNING THE WORD ALREADY EXISTED. HE WAS WITH GOD, AND HE WAS GOD. 2 HE WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD 3 HE CREATED EVERYTHING THERE IS. NOTHING EXISTS THAT HE DIDN'T MAKE. 4 LIFE ITSELF WAS WITH HIM, AND THIS LIFE GIVES LIGHT TO EVERYONE. 5 THE LIGHT SHINES THROUGH DARKNESS, AND THE DARKNESS CAN NEVER EXTINGUISH IT."
 

From Latin Vulgate: "At the Beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word WAS GOD. He abode, at the beginning of time, with God. It was Through him that all things come into being, and without him come nothing that has come to be."

DO YOU NOTICE  HOE ALL 4 BIBLE SAY THE SAME THING??

The text of John 1:1 as well as the Greek, was extensively discussed in the comments of Isaiah 43:10. But we will explore a few more aspects of this verse here.

In our discussion of Isaiah 43:10, we highlighted the "a god means he is a false god" theory some have mistakenly believed the NWT (New World Translation) translation of John 1:1 leads to. There is no other conclusion that we can come to – unless NWT author knows something that GOD does not?? We will discuss this matter further, and then go on to explore some other aspects of John 1:1 in order to determine the text's true meaning.

 Again, we have commented on this extensively in the Isaiah 43:10 section. However, there are other ways show that persons and things in the Bible can serve as representatives of the original, but NOT be considered false when compared to the real item or person.

THIS IS SO – BUT THERE IS ONLY “ONE” GOD. A MESSENGER IS SOMEONE TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO THE ORIGINAL SENDER. ALSO A ANGEL MESSENGER IS NOT THE SAME AS “GOD” HIMSELF.

For instance, Jesus helped us to see this at John 6:48,49,50,55 when he said: "I am the bread of life. YOUR forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness and yet died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink"

 THIS PASSAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JOHN 1:1 – BUT A DIVERSION FROM WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED.

I WILL CITE ONLY FROM ONE BIBLE AS THIS PAGE IS ALREADY SO BIG  - I WILL ALSO CITE THE "MISSING VERSES" AS THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT WHEN DISCUSSING THIS PASSAGE - YOU WILL SEE WHAT I MEAN - FROM NIV IN VERSE 47 ON WE READ:

"I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, HE WHO BELIEVES HAS EVERLASTING LIFE. 48 I AM THE BREAD OF EVERLASTING LIFE. 49 YOUR FOREFATHERS ATE THE MANNA IN THE DESERT, YET THEY DIED. 50 BUT HERE IS THE BREAD OF LIFE THAT COMES FROM HEAVEN, WHICH A MAN MAY EAT AND NOT DIE. 51 I AM THE LIVING BREAD THAT CAM DOWN FROM HEAVEN. IF ANYONE EATS OF THIS BREAD HE WILL LIVE FOREVER. THIS BREAD IS MY FLESH, WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE
WORLD 52 THEN THE JEWS BEGAN TO ARGUE SHARPLY AMONG THEMSELVES, 'HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?' 53 JESUS SAID TO THEM, "I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU. 54 WHO EVER EATS MY FLESH & DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE, AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAYS. 55  FOR MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD AND MY FLESH IS REAL DRINK. 56 WHOEVER EATS MY FLESH & DRINKS MY BLOOD REMAINS IN ME & I IN HIM."

DO YOU SEE WHAT THE BIG PICTURE IS ALL ABOUT??

DO YOU PARTAKE IN THE COMMUNION OF JESUS' FLESH & BLOOD AS HE SAYS THAT "ANYONE" WHO WANTS TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE??

IF NOT - ARE YOU CALLING JESUS A LIAR??

HE SAYS THAT HE IS TELLING US THE TRUTH - SO HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU SAY THAT GOD'S SON DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT??

 Jesus here contrasted the manna in the wilderness with his flesh. He said that "His flesh was true food." Now, did this make the manna false food? NO!!

AGAIN DIVERSION – MANNA WAS A PHYSICAL FOOD FOR JEWS WHO ROAMED THE DESERT FOR SOME 40 YEARS - EVE THOUGH THEY ATE IT THEY DIED == BUT == JESUS’ FLESH  THAT IS - THE BREAD THAT HE BROKE AT THE LAST SUPPER IS “SPIRITUAL” FOOD FOR US & SOMETHING THAT ALL SHOULD PARTAKE IN.  JESUS TELLS US THAT - ANYONE WHO DOES NOT DO THAT HAS NO CHANCE OF ETERNAL LIFE.

DO YOU PARTAKE IN EATING THE BREAD OF LIFE??

Paul at Hebrews 8:1,2 said: "Now as to the things being discussed this is the main point: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a public servant of the holy place and of the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man."

 SO TRUE – BUT AGAIN THIS PASSAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RENDERING THE WORDS “KAI THEOS” IN JOHN’S PASSAGE. IT IS A DIVERSION SO TO MISLEAD THE READER.

 THIS ROMANS PASSAGE IS THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS GROWN OUT OF AN EXPOSITION FROM JEREMIAH 31:31-34. TELLING US & DEMONSTRATING TO US THAT JESUS IS THE MEDIATOR OF A BETTER COVENANT SEE ALSO ROMANS 7:22.

 Here, Jesus sits on his throne in heaven, which is the "Holy of Holies." This "Holy of Holies," or heaven, is called the "true tent." Now does this mean that the tents used in the wilderness by the Israelites were "false" tents because Paul called the heavenly tent "true?" No.

 SO TRUE – AGAIN THE LANGUAGE & WORDS ARE USED FOR “OUR” UNDERSTANDING & NOT GOD’S UNDERSTANDING. ALSO JEWS KNEW ABOUT THE TENT OF THE EARTHLY EXPRESSION AS THEIR FOREFATHERS USED IT FOR MANY CENTURIES TO
OFFER SACRIFICES IN THE DESERT.

 PAINTING PICTURES AGAIN SO THAT OUR HUMAN MINDS CAN COMPREHEND IT.

 In both of these examples of the manna and the tent, the Bible plainly shows, that these were typical things that pictured greater or "anti typical," "heavenly" things. These typical things (the manna and the tents) were "copies of the realities" as Paul outlined in Hebrews 9:24: "For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us."

In other words, they pictured something greater.

THIS IS THE POINT – PAINTING PICTURES FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING & NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRANSLATION OF JOHN’S PASSAGE.

WE HAVE COVERED SO MUCH OF THE BIBLE - BUT UP NOW WE HAVEN'T BEEN DISCUSSING THE SUBJECT AT HAND - WHICH IS JOHN 1:1

 However they were NOT false. [THEY W ERE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS & NOT RELEVANT TO EACH OTHER.} Some have pointed to John 17:1-3, and said "because the Father is called the Only True God, and John 1:1, according to the NWT, says that Jesus is 'a god,' then we have to conclude that Jesus must be a false god." This is similar to the Isaiah 43:10 idea. Well to contrast the word "true" at John 17:3 with being "false" is entirely misleading.

AGAIN – NOTHING TO DO WITH “TRANSLATING” WORDS “KAI THEOS”. BUT MISLEADING TO TAKE THE READER AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT AT HAND.

IN JEREMIAH 10:10 NWT READS  LIKE THIS: "BUT JEHOVAH IS IN  TRUTH GOD. HE IS THE LIVING GOD AND KING TO TIME INDEFINITE. BECAUSE OF HIS INDIGNATION THE EARTH WILL ROCK, AND NO NATION WILL HOLD UP UNDER HIS DENUNCIATION. 11 THIS IS WHAT YOU MEN WILL SAY TO THEM: 'THE gods THAT DID NOT MAKE THE VERY HEAVENS AND EARTH ARE THE ONES WHO WILL PERISH FROM THE EARTH AND FROM UNDER THESE HEAVENS. 12 HE IS THE MAKER OF THE EARTH BY HIS POWER, THE ONE FIRMLY ESTABLISHING THE PRODUCTIVE LAND BY HIS WISDOM, AND ONE WHO BY HIS UNDERSTANDING STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS."

 DO YOU SEE HERE THAT ANY god  WHO DID NOT CREATE THE HEAVENS & EARTH WILL PERISH?? JEHOVAH IS THE SPEAKER - OK - ALSO JEHOVAH IS TELLING US THE HE IS THE TRUE GOD & THAT HE IS THE ONE WHO CREATED THE HEAVENS & EARTH - NOT SOME "a god" - OK!!

BUT ALL BIBLES SAY THAT IT IS JESUS WHO CREATED EVERYTHING IN HEAVEN & EARTH - VISIBLE & INVISIBLE IN COLOSSINANS 1;16 & JOHN 1:3.

SO - I ASK YOU WHO IS JESUS??  TRUE GOD OR FALSE - HE CAN ONLY BE ONE & NOT BOTH - OK??

 The Greek word for "true" at John 17:3 is "alethinos."

BUT THE WORDS IN DISCUSSION ARE “KAI THEOS” & NOT “ALETHINOS. THIS IS MISLEADING & DENYING JESUS HIS DUES SO TO SUIT THE WT TEACHING & NOT TEACHING OF THE DISCIPLES & APOSTLES.

ALSO JEREMIAH'S PASSAGE TELLS US THAT ANY god  WHO DID NOT CREATE THE HEAVENS & EARTH WILL DIE - IS JESUS DEAD OR ALIVE??

 It means: "that which has not only the name and semblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name… in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name.…; true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies." THEREFORE JESUS IS NOT A COPY - BUT TRUE GOD!!

Thus, this word, alethinos, allows for others to rightfully have the qualities, or be semblance of, the Father, and yet, still NOT be false. For the Father is the only one that possesses "not only the name and semblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name… in every respect." This word then allows for ones to bear the name, or semblance, but NOT in every respect, or to the same degree as the Father. Also, it allows for others to be "copies, or semblance" of the "archetype," The Father is the one who alone possesses all the reality.

SO DOES THE SON OR OUR CHILDREN HAVE THE SAME SEMBLANCE'S AS US.

BUT AGAIN - JEREMIAH TELLS US THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANY god APART FROM THE ONE THAT CREATED THE HEAVENS & EARTH CAN BE REAL.

IN ISAIAH 45: 18 -NWT "THIS IS WHAT THE JEHOVAH HAS SAID. THE CREATOR OF THE HEAVENS, HE THE [TRUE] GOD THE FORMER OF THE EARTH AND THE MAKER OF IT, HE THE ONE WHO FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IT, WHO DID NOT CREATE IT SIMPLY FOR NOTHING, WHO FORMED IT EVEN TO BE INHABITED: I AM THE  JEHOVAH, & THERE IS NO OTHER."

PLEASE NOTE THERE IS NO OTHER!! THE ONE WHO FORMED THE EARTH & HEAVEN IS TRUE GOD.

JESUS IS THE ONE WHO FORMED THE HEAVENS & EARTH - DO YOU SEE THE CONNECTION HERE??

Thus, Jesus CAN possess the qualities of the God whom he was with at John 1:1, or be a semblance, yet not in every respect, of the God whom he was with, and still NOT be a false god any more than the manna is false food, and the tent of the Israelites was a false tent.

WHEN THE SON POSSESSES THE SAME QUALITIES AS THE FATHER (GOD) THEN HE IS THE SAME IN NATURE AS HIS FATHER - THAT IS - HE IS GOD!

OTHERWISE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

IF SOMETHING IS SAME AS THE ORIGINAL THEN IT POSSESSES THE SAME QUALITIES BY NATURE OR LAW OF EQUALITY OF NATURE. A SHARK, COD, TROUT AND A GOLD FISH ARE ALL DIFFERENT BY DESIGN – BUT BY THE SEMBLANCE THEY ARE ALL “FISH” – IN OTHER WORDS – BY NATURE THEY ALL HAVE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH AND NOT MAMMALS.

 SOME HOW – THIS AUTHOR IS TELLING US THAT JESUS IS THE SAME BY SEMBLANCE (NATURE) TO HIS FATHER – YET IN THE SAME BREATH HE IS SOME HOW DIFFERENT IN NATURE TO HIS FATHER.

THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE – HE EITHER IS “GOD” OR “a god”. HE CAN NOT BE THE TWO.

JUST AS SHARK IS NOT A COW NOR ELEPHANT – A DIFFERENT KIND – NEITHER CAN JESUS BE A DIFFERENT KIND THAN HIS FATHER. DO ANGELS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE SPIRITS HAVE THE SAME NATURE AS GOD? IF THEY DID WOULD THEY NOT BE GOD BY NATURE.

Hebrews 1:3 is also very important to this discussion and needs to be commented on before we proceed. It reads: "He is the reflection of [his] glory and the “exact representation” of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places."

 SO TRUE – JESUS IS THE “EXACT REPRESENTATION” OF GOD IN HUMAN FLESH.

Here the Greek word translated "exact representation" is "character." This word means "to bear the imprint of the stamp; marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect."

{NOT HERE – EXACT REPRESENTATION IN EVERY RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL}

The "character" is "that which bears the "imprint" of the  stamp, the soft clay seal as it were. In Bible times, it was the STAMP of the King's ring that was pressed onto the soft clay seal by the King,  or royalty. This was used to mark or signify the scroll or letter as  authentic and sanctioned by the King.

Jesus thus is not the STAMP, but rather, the one that bears the IMPRINT *OF* the stamp. The  Father, Jehovah, is the STAMP in this analogy, and Jesus the soft clay  seal. Thus Jesus is NOT  the original, but a "copy, marked likeness, or precise reproduction" of  the original. (Just like we  said above, a semblance) If Jesus were the God of the Universe, Jehovah,  he could NOT be  referred to as a copy or reproduction of the original, he WOULD BE the  original. But the  Bible does not say that at Hebrews 1:3, does it? Let us continue with our discussion.

 THIS IS NOT SO – IF FATHER WAS THE STAMP – THEN JESUS IS THE STAMP.

AUTHOR IS CONFUSING THE ISSUE AGAIN. THE STAMP GIVES US AN “IMPRINT”  WITHIN THE STAMP IT'S SELF.

FOR US TO HAVE A “EXACT REPRESENTATION” OF THE STAMP WE MUST CREATE ANOTHER STAMP LIKE IT.

IF WE ARE TO CREATE THE“ EXACT REPRESENTATION” OF THE IMPRINT THAT THE STAMP HAS WITHIN IT –

THEN ALL  THAT WE HAVE TO REPRODUCE IS THE EXACT LIKENESS OF THE IMPRINT &  NOT THE “WHOLE STAMP”.

JUST LIKE THE KING'S RING – FOR US TO REPRODUCE THE IMPRINT THAT THE KINGS  RING LEAVES IN THE WAX WAS SEAL. ALL THAT WE HAVE TO REPRODUCE IS THE ‘EXACT LIKENESS OF THE IMPRINT” & NOT THE “WHOLE RING”.

CAN YOU SEE HOW THE AUTHOR IS MISLEADING THE READER HERE BY COMPARING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS TO CAME TO HIS OWN POINT OF VIEW?

WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR - YOU SEE "EXACT REPRESENTATION" OF YOUR SELF & NOT SOME ONE ELSE. RIGHT!!

SAME APPLIES TO JESUS - FOR US TO SEE WHAT GOD IS LIKE - ALL THAT WE HAVE TO DO IS LOOK AT JESUS & WE SEE WHAT GOD LOOKS LIKE - AS HE IS THE "EXACT REPRESENTATION" OF GOD IN HUMAN FLESH.

THEREFORE JESUS IS THE SAME AS THE STAMP ITSELF OR THE IMPRINT.   WHICHEVER THE FATHER REPRESENTS SO DOES THE SON.

YES THE BIBLE TELLS US THAT JESUS IS THE EXACT RADIANCE OF GOD & “EXACT  REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING” SUSTAINING ALL THINGS  BY HIS POWERFUL WORD. THAT MEANS THAT HE IS GOD & THAT ALL HE HAS TO DO IS SPEAK &  THINGS GET CREATED – AS IN GENESIS 1 & 2.

Others throughout the Bible are rightfully called "god(s)." We see evidence of this at Psalms 8:5  where the angels are called "elohim," the Hebrew word which means "God."  Are angels false Gods?

YES THEY ARE!  THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED ANGELS & NOT GOD!!

ON THE OTHER HAND THEY ARE DIVINE BY NATURE – BUT MUCH LOWER IN RANK. KJV SAYS "IT IS ANGELS’ AND NIV SAYS ‘ HEAVENLY BEINGS’ THE WORD IS TRANSLATED  ACCORDING TO CONTEXT.
 

TO SEE WHAT C.T. RUSSELL WROTE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT CLICK HERE:

 The Psalmist at Psalms 136:2 says this: "Give thanks to the God of the gods: For his loving-kindness is to time indefinite."  Now, is Jehovah the God of FALSE Gods? NO!

YES HE IS – GOD IS THE GOD OF EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE. THERE IS NO ONE THAT HAS MORE AUTHORITY THEN HE. AUTHOR SHOULD RECOGNIZE THIS BY ISAIAH 43 THAT HE CITED ABOVE, BUT HE DOES NOT EVEN RECOGNIZE THAT. Please read Isaiah 45:5 also.

THIS IS THE KIND OF WARNINGS I LIKE TO WARN YOU AGAINST. WE CAN NOT MAKE THINGS UP AS WE GO ALONG & THEN HOPE THAT WE GET AWAY WITH IT. GOD IS GOD OF 'ALL" & NOT JUST THINGS WE LIKE TO MAKE IT BE.

 Psalms 82:1,6 reads: "God is stationing  himself in the assembly of the Divine One; In the middle of the gods he judges: "I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of  the Most High".

 NIV TRANSLATES ‘GOD PRESIDES IN THE GREAT ASSEMBLY; HE GIVES JUDGEMENT AMONG THE gods. V6 ‘I SAID YOU ARE gods YOU ARE ALL SONS OF THE MOST HIGH.’ NOTE THE DIFFERENCE IN MEANINGS. VERSE 7 says ‘BUT YOU WILL DIE LIKE MERE MEN; YOU WILL FALL LIKE EVERY OTHER RULER.’

NOW HE SAYS THAT GOD IS MOST HIGH & WE ARE HIS SONS – BUT IN THE OPENING SENTENCE = GOD IS NOT GOD OF FALSE gods. HMMMMMMMMMM  - INTERESTING IDEA.

Yes, Jehovah stands in the middle of "the gods." These "gods" were the  judges of Israel that were  placed in the position of rendering judgement to the nation of Israel. Jehovah himself calls these ones "gods," even though they were not properly living up to their responsibilities, but they still were "gods" in Jehovah's eyes, as he was the one who appointed them as such.

THIS STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WORDS “KAI THEOS” – BUT YES GOD CAN CALL ANYONE HE WANTS AS HIS MESSENGERS.

Remember, Jehovah refers to false Gods as being "non-existent." Isaiah 41:29: "Look! All of them are something non-existent. Their works are nothing. Their molten images are wind and unreality."

THIS IS TRUE IN THE SENSE THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER GODS - BUT gods!!

IN COMPARISON TO HIS GLORIOUS WORKS. AS FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED THEY ARE FALSE gods & THEY ARE, BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WORDS “KAI THEOS” – I'M STARING TO SOUND LIKE  A BROKEN RECORD FOLKS, BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT THAT THIS DISCUSSION BEGAN.

Thus Jehovah cannot be the God of non-existent false Gods! No, Jehovah is the God of those that bear the semblance of him.. Those that have qualities that make them godlike. Remember, these ones are copies of the original, though not in every respect.

SO WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH “JOHN 1:1”??  – NOTHING RIGHT.

BUT THERE IS NO GODS LIKE HIM – SO WHAT IS THE POINT HERE? – THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD BY NATURE WHO CONSISTS OF 3 PERSONS.

Even Satan, in the Bible, is rightfully called "ho theos," that is, "the God."

NOT SO – DEVIL IS “a god of this system” & not “THE GOD”. BIG DIFFERENCE HERE – ALSO THERE IS NO OTHER ENGLISH WORD THAT WE HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO. WE KNOW THAT JESUS CAN NOT BE PLACED ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE DEVIL. HOWEVER – IF WE ARE TO SAY THAT JESUS IS “a god” then we are placing him on the same level as the devil.

THIS IS NOT ADVISABLE – IT’S A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO ONE'S SPIRITUAL LIFE.

But in what context Paul made this statement under inspiration at 2 Corinthians. 4:4: "among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."

PLEASE REREAD THIS PASSAGE & SEE THE DIFFERENCE OF MEANING. THIS PASSAGE IS SO TRUE.

 Yes, Satan is the REAL correct God of this system of things alienated from Jehovah and destined for destruction at Armageddon.

{NO THIS IS NOT TRUE – SATAN IS god of this system – but not “GOD” OF THIS SYSTEM THAT IS JESUS}

The argument here folks in on the capital ‘G’.

Satan cannot be a false god of this system because Paul said that  Satan was THE god of this system.

SATAN IS REAL & IS god of this system, the emphasis on the word “THE” & not on the word “god” is a misrepresentation in the grammatical context. ALL FALSE GODS ARE ‘IDOLS’. WE EMPHASIZE THE WORD “GOD” and NOT THE WORD “THE”

It was qualified and limited to the context of "the system of things." Satan's entire twisted goal is to be a god like Jehovah.

JUST A SLIGHT PROBLEM HERE. I THINK THIS IS A TYPO ERROR AS "JEHOVAH IS NOT a god" either - Devil is seeking to be like Him - which is "THE GOD" !!

Another aspect to consider at John 1:1 is the question: "Who is the God that the Word was with."

NOT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WORDS “KAI THEOS” – THEY ARE IN QUESTION & NOT THE FATHER. THE MISTRANSLATION OF NWT IS ALSO IN QUESTION & NOT THE FATHER.

 Now some are quick to respond, "The Father." In fact, this response is the response that most trinitarians hold to.

THIS IS WHAT THE WORD OF GOD TELLS US  "THE WORD WAS WITH GOD" – SO WHY SAY THAT ONLY TRINITARIANS SAY THIS. CHRISTIANS POINT TO FACTS AS THE WORD OF GOD PRESENTS THEM.

However to translate John 1:1 as "….and the Word was God" creates a problem if you believe, as most trinitarians do, that the God the Word was with, was God the Father. Why is this?

THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH ANY CHRISTIANS AGREEING WITH THE WORD OF GOD, BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO DISREGARD THE TRUTH.

It is because the Greek word translated God, as in "…and the Word was with God " at John 1:1b is "theon." (the accusative ending of the word "theos") It is the SAME Greek word in John 1:1c (theos) where translations like the NIV, KJ, NASB and others translate it as God, as in "…and the word was God."

NOW WE WILL CONFUSE YOU WITH THE GREEK GRAMMAR AGAIN, BUT THIS IS NOT SO – TAKE A LOOK AT MARK 12:26-27 IN NWT.

Therefore a major problem arises.

ONLY FOR NON BELIEVERS WHO PRETEND TO BE FOLLOWERS BUT THEY DENY HIM.  2 Timothy 3:5-8

If you define (or interpret) the first instance of "theos" in John 1:1b as "the Word was with God (The Father), then you MUST define (or interpret) the second instance of theos in John 1:1c as "..and the Word was God (The Father). Not so – it must be only translated as “GOD”, the father is not needed in this reference. If it were needed then the Greek word “pater” (meaning father) would also be used so to give us that translation. If not, then "by what Greek grammatical right do you have to change definitions of the very same word in the very same verse?"

THAT’S WHY WE ASK THE QUESTION IN MARK 12:26-27? WE DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING – WE JUST USE THE SAME GRAMMATICAL CONTEXT OF THE WORDS & TRANSLATE THE WORDS AS THE GOD.

ALSO - WHEN I AM TALKING ABOUT YOU - I DO NOT HAVE TI SAY - THERE GOES (YOUR NAME) & HIS DAD EVERY TIME. DO I?? NO I CAN SAY THERE GOES (YOU) & TOM ( FOR EXAMPLE ONLY) - OR - I DO NOT HAVE TO SAY THERE GOES YOU & HIS/HERS HUMAN FATHER DO I?

WHAT JOHN 1: 1 IS SAYING IS THAT JESUS WAS JUST AS MUCH GOD AS HIS FATHER - JUST LIKE YOU & YOUR FATHER ARE EQUAL IN HUMANITY. YOUR ARE NOT "MORE" "HUMAN" THEN YOUR DAD - NOR IS YOUR DAD MORE HUMAN THEN YOU.

SAME APPLIES TO JESUS & HIS DAD - THEY ARE OF SAME EQUALITY WITHIN THE "SEMBLANCE - NATURE" OF GOD.

This is the very problem that some Bible students encounter when trying to justify the popular translation of John 1:1 as "and the Word was God."

NOT SO – ONLY NON BELIEVERS FACE THIS PROBLEM.

However, careful Bible students are quick to recognize a difference in the Greek construction of the noun "theos" as it appears in two very distinctive ways at John 1:1.

Let's look at the two different appearances of the word "theos" in John 1:1. The first usage of 'theos' (which is spelled with the accusative case ending) is preceded by a definite article. We read:

                         "kai ho logos en pros ton theon"

       (kai=and ho=the logos=Word en=was pros=with (toward) ton=the theon=God)

THERE IS ONE SMALL HITCH HERE FOLKS & THAT IS THAT THE WORDS IN QUESTION ARE NOT "TON THEON" - BUT 'KAI  THEOS"

I WILL CITE WORD FOR WORD FROM NWT  IT:

"En   arche         en      ho    logos     kai     ho   logos    en    pros     ton    theon    kai   theos    en      ho      logos
"In   beginning   was    the   Word   and    the   Word  was  toward   the    God     and     god     was     the    Word

I HAVE UNDERLINED FOR YOU THE WORDS IN QUESTION & YOU CAN SEE FOR YOUR SELF THAT THE WRONG WORD IS BEING DISCUSSED HERE.

THE WORDS IN QUESTION ARE "KAI THEOS & NOT TON THEON!!! INTERESTING ANALOGY HEY??

Here we see that Jesus was in the "beginning" ("not from eternity," "Joseph Henry Thayer,") with "The God." [email me about the source of that quote]

IN GENESIS 1 WE READ: “IN THE “BEGINNING” GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE… ETC.

THERE WAS NOTHING BEFORE THIS “BEGINNING” WHEN JESUS STARTED THE CREATION - EXCEPT HIMSELF - & THE FATHER & THE HOLY SPIRIT & THE ANGELS WERE ALL THERE.

THERE IS NOTHING ELSE BEFORE THIS BEGINNING [see Hebrews 7: 3}. AS AN EXERCISE, DRAW YOURSELF

A STRAIGHT LINE AND WHERE YOU FIRST PLACE THE PEN IS THE BEGINNING AND THE

REST IS CREATION. NOW IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE THE BEGINNING - EXCEPT

FOR PAPER, YOU ARE DRAWING ON. ? NO THERE ISN'T - IF THERE IS THEN YOU HAVE DRAWN THE LINE FIRST & PLACED YOUR PEN ON IT :-))

 Then John tells us something else about the Word. John says:

NOTE THAT HERE WE ARE DISCUSSING "KAI THEOS" NOW & NOT "TON THEON"

The subject of the clause in John 1:1c is "ho Logos" or The Word. The  verb is "en" or Was. The  predicate noun is "theos" or "a god."

Is John telling us that Jesus is one of many gods? Lets look a bit  closer at John 1:1.

NO - NO NO !! NOT JOHN – BUT WT & GB INTERPRETING BODY & ANY NON  BELIEVER OF GODS GOSPEL.

A noun is a word that denotes a person, place, thing, or quality. The  definite article "the" identifies a specific person, place or thing. An indefinite article like "a" or "an" tell us the group or division a particular person or thing belongs to. Indefinite articles also can be used to indicate the qualities of a person, place or thing.

THEN IN MARK 12:26-27 SAME RULES APPLY – AS THE SAME WORDS ARE USED, BUT THEY DO NOT TRANSLATE IT AS SUCH. Hmmmmmm WOULD THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE SAME WORDS REFER TO GOD OF OT?  Hmmmmm.

Jesus, the Word, at John 1:1c, is said to be "theos." The word "theos" literally means "god, deity, divine."

SO TRUE – SO LET’S USE IT AS SUCH.

In the first instance of "theos," Jesus is said to be with "THE GOD." This first instance of "theos" HAS the definite article "ton" (the) before it. This shows that the Word was with "THE" God. The definite article in the Greek clothes this "theos" with identity.

The second instance of "theos" LACKS the definite article. There is NO "indefinite" article used in the ancient Greek language. (though there is an indefinite pronoun) However in English, an "indefinite" article IS used. Thus, when translating the Bible into other languages that use an indefinite article, the translation needs to reflect the full flavour of the original language so that the translation is as close to the original in meaning.

THAT IS WHY ALL BIBLES THAT ARE NOT TRANSLATED BY THE "RELIGIOUS" BODY IT SELF - LIKE WT - MORMONS etc.  THE BIBLE TRANSLATORS USE THE ARTICLE & THEY SAY THAT JESUS IS GOD.

WHEN ARTICLE IN ANY LANGUAGE IS UNDERSTOOD THEN IT IS NOT NEEDED TO BE USED, BUT WHEN THERE IS A NEED TO USE IT THEN IT IS USED.

THERE IS NO NEED IN ENGLISH TO SAY THAT JESUS "WAS THE GOD" WHEN THE STATEMENT "WAS GOD" IS SUFFICIENT FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

ESPECIALLY WHEN WE READ THE VERSE 3 WHICH TELLS US THAT IT WAS JESUS WHO "CREATED" EVERYTHING UNDER THE HEAVEN & EARTH - BEFORE ANYONE PICKS UP ON IT - THE EXACT WORDS ARE  "WITHOUT HIM NOTHING WAS MADE."

However some say "because there is no indefinite article in the Greek at John 1:1, you cannot use an indefinite article in the English at John 1:1."

SO WHY DO THEY DO IT IN MARK 12:26-27?

ALSO THE GREEK ACTUALLY TRANSLATES "AND GOD WAS THE WORD"  - PLEASE SEE THE QUOTE ABOVE?

ENOUGH SAID - "AND GOD WAS THE WORD"  WHAT ELSE MUST W E SAY??

IT IS SO SIMPLE BUT DENIERS OF CHRIST'S DEITY GO ON ABOUT PLAYING WITH THE GREEK GRAMMAR RULES OF INTERPRETATION & TRANSLATING IT IN TO ENGLISH AS IT SUITS THEM.

If this is the case, then why does every major translation us an "a" when they translate John 4:19 as "..a prophet," or John 8:44 as "....a murderer," or John 10:1 as "..a thief," or John 10:33 as "..a man," when the original text contains NO "indefinite" article?

BECAUSE IN ENGLISH GRAMMAR IT IS THE DONE THING & IN GREEK IT IS NOT NEEDED.

DIFFERENT LANGUAGES HAVE THEIR OWN GRAMMATICAL CONTEXTS. JUST AS MY (CROATIAN LANGUAGE & IN FRENCH WE HAVE TABLES & CHAIRS THAT DENOTE MASCULINE & FEMININE GENDERS & IN ENGLISH THEY TAKE ON “NEUTER” GENDER.

COME ON FOLKS – THIS IS SO RIDICULES TO USE GRAMMATICAL RULES OF ONE LANGUAGE  {GREEK IN THIS CASE} & THEN USE THE RULES OF GREEK GRAMMAR TO WRITE & TRANSLATE “ENGLISH” LANGUAGE. THIS IS NOT DONE – AS THERE IS A NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS THAT EACH LANGUAGE IS FACED WITH. THAT’S WHY EACH LANGUAGE HAS IT’S OWN GRAMMATICAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION - WRITING  - SPEAKING etc.

AS I SAID IT ABOVE - IN JOHN 1:1 THE GREEK ACTUALLY STATES "AND GOD WAS THE WORD"!!!

IT ACTUALLY USES THE ARTICLES - BUT THE AUTHOR IS CONCENTRATING ON THE WRONG PART OF THE TEXT IN JOHNS PASSAGE & THEN TRIES TO CONFUSE WITH A "UN RELEVANT" PASSAGE OF JOHN 4:19 ETC.

A PROPHET SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH "AND THE WORD WAS THE GOD"   - JOHN CAN NOT MAKE IT ANY MORE  CLEAR THE THAT!!

They do so, because they realize that the construction of these nouns  are qualitative, or indefinite and need an indefinite article when translated into the English to fully appreciate their meaning. However, due to a "biased theological mindset," these same translators failed to do so at John 1:1. SEE LAST NOTE.

 So we see that the second instance of the noun "theos" lacks the definite article.

NO IT DOES NOT!!  HOW MORE DEFINITE THEN "THE" DO WE WANT TO GET??

But there is MORE to it than just that. Trinitarians are quick to point out that there are plenty of instances where "theos" lacks the definite article, and yet IS properly translated as "GOD," with reference to Jehovah even in the NWT! This is true, as we see evidence of that at John 1:6 which reads: "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John." Here the word "theos" lacks the definite article, yet is properly translated "God." Also at John 1:18 which reads: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." Here again "theos" is properly translated "God," yet lacks the definite article.

NOW WE CHANGE THE RULES AS IN THIS CASE THE SUBJECT RELATES TO THE GOD OF OT & NOT TO JESUS.

IT IS FUNNY HOW WE CHANGE THE RULES TO SUIT OUR SELVES WHEN THE NEED ARISES. THIS TIME IT IS PROPERLY TRANSLATED WITHOUT THE ARTICLE – BUT IN JOHN 1:1 IS NOT. SMELLS FISHY TO ME!!!! HMMMMMMMM. WHAT ABOUT YOU??

So then why can the "theos" that lacks the definite article be translated as "God, with reference to Jehovah," and " a god," in a qualitative sense, in John 1:1c?

Because in John 1:1 the noun "theos" also PRECEDES (is located before) the verb. (as all the nouns do in the above cited scriptures that use "a" in the translation) Thus the second instance of "theos," BECAUSE of the COMBINATION of it LACKING the definite article AND the fact that it PRECEDES the VERB makes "theos" QUALITATIVE, and the context makes it indefinite (see below).

SEE WHAT I MEAN – MAKING RULES AS WE GO ALONG.

NOT BEING NASTY HERE - BUT AS I POINTED OUT  ABOVE - "THEOS" DOES HAVE THE "THE" OR "KAI" RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT - THAT TO ME IS LOCATED BEFORE THE NOUN. HOW ABOUT YOU??

Thus the word "theos" at John 1:1c, is what is called an "anarthrous (without the definite article), predicate (of having the nature of), noun (person, place, thing, or QUALITY)." It is qualitative in that it tells us something about the subject, NOT who the subject (the Word) WAS. Rather, it reveals a quality about Jesus. Yes, John here is telling us that Jesus was "a god," meaning that he was a "godlike or divine" individual! OR that Jesus simply was divine! ("and NOT the divine being himself" "Joseph Henry Thayer") [email me about the source of this quote]

NOT CORRECT - WE  WILL EXPLAIN SOON.

John is NOT telling us that "Jesus is one of many gods." Thus again, the trinitarian "true verses false" routine, is bogus and does not apply to what John wrote about Jesus at John 1:1.

THERE IS NOTHING BOGUS ABOUT WHAT JOHN WROTE - BUT THE ONLY THING THAT IS BOGUS IS THE "MADE" UP RULES THAT ARE NO EXISTENT!!
 AS you can see from the meaning above - Jesus is God Like or Divine!!

For a parallel sentence construction to John 1:1c please see John 6:70: "Jesus answered them: "I chose YOU twelve, did I not? Yet one of YOU is a slanderer (devil)."

                      Here the Greek to english literally reads:  "……..and of you, one devil (diabolos) is."

THIS AGAIN IS CONFUSING THE GRAMMATICAL ISSUE THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND.

BUT MORE TO THE POINT THIS IS NOT HOW IT READS IN KIT - IT GOES LIKE THIS

"AND -OUTOF - YOU - ONE -  DEVIL - IS"

IN KJV GREEK INTERLINEAR  & NRSV & NIV:  "AND  - OF - YOU - ONE - A DEVIL - IS"

IT IS NOT THAT I AM BEING PEDANTIC ABOUT THIS WORD "OUT"  - BUT THAT THE EMPHASIS IN GREEK IS ON THE DEVIL & IT READS LIKE THIS.  "YET ONE OF YOU IS A DEVIL"

IN NWT IT READS LIKE THIS:  "YET ONE OF YOU IS A SLANDERER."

AS YOU CAN SEE - ALL 4 BIBLES RENDER THIS PASSAGE IN THE SAME WAY - I WILL EXPLAIN BELLOW WHAT IS MEANT BY THIS VERSE.

Here we see that Jesus was speaking of Judas Iscariot. {WE KNOW THIS IN HINDSIGHT – APOSTLES DIDN’T BECAUSE IT HADN'T HAPPENED YET} He referred to Judas as "diabolos."  This word means "devil, murderer, man slayer, slander." Was Jesus saying that Judas Iscariot was actually Satan THE Devil? NO! Was he one of many devils? NO! But rather he had the qualities of the devil, in that he was a devil-like individual due to his mind set.

EVEN WHEN WE TODAY CALL SOMEONE A DEVIL – WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT HE IS “SATAN HIMSELF” BUT LIKE HIM HE IS DOING THE WRONG THINGS LIKE SATAN.

IN EFFECT THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAY THAT WE REACT TO JESUS - WE EITHER "ACCEPT" HIM OR "REJECT" HIM.

WHAT JESUS WAS SAYING IS THIS:  THAT WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT "ACCEPT" HIM - THEY IN EFFECT ARE REJECTING HIM.

THERE IS NO TWO WAYS WITH HIM-   IT IS EITHER WITH HIM OR AGAINST HIM.  IN THIS CASE JUDAS WAS AGAINST HIM & SO JESUS TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS LIKE A DEVIL.  DEVIL IS THE ONE WHO TURNS PEOPLE AGAINST JESUS -

HOW IS YOUR LIFE FOCUSED - ON JESUS OR AGAINST HIM??  IF YOU ARE AGAINST HIM - WOULD YOU PLEASE RE READ THIS PASSAGE AGAIN?

Now, even with the above in mind, some still argue that John 1:1c should be vigorously translated "the Word was God." Why is this? It is because they point to a similar sentence structure of a predicate noun preceding the verb found at John 1:14 which reads: "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth."

ANOTHER PASSAGE FROM THE WORD OF GOD WITH THE SAME GRAMMATICAL CONTEXTS AS JOHN 1:1, BUT THIS ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE WT AS IT DOES NOT GO ALONG WITH THEIR TEACHING.

IF THEY WERE TO ACCEPT IT AS TRUE, THEN THEIR ENTIRE TEACHING GOES DOWN THE SHOOT.  WOULDN'T IT??

Some say that the first part of this verse: "So the Word became flesh," is a duplicate sentence structure of John 1:1. Specifically, that "both are predicate nominative," and both have the same "being" as the subject, "ho logos." Also, both subjects have the article, and the predicate noun is anarthrous and placed before the verb. The Greek in the beginning of John 1:14 reads "kai ho logos sarx ginomai." So with these similarities, the reasoning goes, "we should expect similar usage and meaning." Is this the case? Should we translate John 1:14 as "so the Word became *a* flesh". NO! Then why not?

BECAUSE IN “ENGLISH” GRAMMAR WE DO NOT DO THAT -

THE GREEK WORD "KAI" IS TRANSLATED AS "AND" & NOT "A"

It is because the NWT committee was not confused as to what constitutes a count noun and a mass noun. {THEY USED GERBER – SEE OUR PAGE ON WHICH BIBLE) If John had used the count noun ANTHROPOS in John 1:14 ("and the Word came to be a man" {JOHN USED "KAI" - MEANING 'AND']  then we would have a similar use of count noun predicates in pre copulative constructions. But does not SARX (flesh) mean "a man" in this context? Ye it does. But the focus in 1:14 is on the particular nature the Word became, and the weakness resulting from his new mode of being, "flesh." The NWT is simply allowing the reader to make this connection by giving the formal equivalent of SARX, (flesh) but in reality they could alternately have rendered it "a man" (for that is what man is, flesh). English-speaking persons do not say "a flesh" when they mean "a human." But the use of "flesh" by itself, is enough to denote the substance man is made of, and to imply the meaning "a human being," or "a man." The word "flesh" in this instance DOES carry an indefinite sense.

USING AUTHORS OWN ARGUMENT - "LOGOS" BECAME MAN" - LOGOS MEANS GOD!!  CHECK IT OUT IN YOUR DICTIONARY!!

IT SHOULD READ SOMETHING LIKE THIS "THE SELF REVEALING - THOUGHT AND WILL OF GOD, AS SET FORTH IN JOHNS GOSPEL."

DEPENDING ON WHICH DICTIONARY YOU USE - BUT IT SHOULD BE ON THIS WAVE LENGTH!!

But some go on to say: "The NWT translators recognize the difference between qualitative and indefinite emphasis. They don't believe that the Greek at John 1:14 is saying that the word became "a flesh." They believe that this verse is saying that the Word became flesh or human by nature.

 NOTE THE WORD “NATURE” HERE – THIS IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING ABOUT JESUS – IN HIS SPIRIT FORM {NATURE} HE IS GOD AFTER INCARNATION HE IS STILL GOD, BUT IN HUMAN NATURE  OR FLESH, WHEN HE WAS ON EARTH.

So then, just as John says the Word became flesh, NOT "a" flesh, John 1:1c should be translated as as "the Word was God," NOT "a" god. Thus, the predicate noun carries the same emphasis in both passages." Is this the case?

YES IT IS – JOHN USES THE WORD "KAI" MEANING 'AND' - & NOT "A"

Not at all. For this type of argument is simply comparing apples to oranges, or, in this case, count nouns to mass nouns. The Word cannot be "The God," for he is "with" The God. Another way we might say it is: Jesus cannot be "The God" WITH whom he was, otherwise, he would be the same "person," as the person (or persons) "The God" was. The logic of the anarthrous THEOS in a context where he is specifically distinguished from an articular THEOS demands an indefinite sense for the predicate of the 3rd clause. In the same vein, Jesus became "flesh" (= "A man"). Thus the parallel is present, but not in the sense in which these advocate. Notice what other grammarians have said on the subject

FOLKS THIS CONFUSES THE ISSUE EVEN FURTHER. WHEN MY SON IS WITH ME – IS HE WITH HIS FATHER OR HIMSELF ONLY?

OF COURSE HE IS WITH ME – HIS – FATHER & HE IS HIMSELF – OTHERWISE HE WOULD BE SOMEWHERE ELSE OR SOMETHING ELSE.

I HAVE POINTED TO WORD “NATURE” ABOVE – WHAT JOHN 1:1 IS SAYING IS THIS –

JESUS WAS WITH HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN IN HIS (ORIGINAL) SPIRITUAL FORM & HE WAS NOT HIS FATHER. THE WT CONFUSES THE “NATURE” OF GOD – TO GOD BEING “ONE” PERSON & NOT NATURE.

GOD IS THE SPIRITUAL “NATURE” OF THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY THAT WE KNOW. WITHIN THIS AUTHORITY THERE ARE 3 PERSONS ONLY – FATHER – SON - & HOLY SPIRIT.

SEE OUR SECTION ON WHAT RUSSELL WROTE ON THIS SUBJECT!

Studies done by P.B. Harner, Paul Dixon, and others, have shown that anarthrous pre copulative predicate nominatives (theos in John 1:1c) have a primarily qualitative nuance. That is to say, the emphasis is on the particular nature of the noun or substantive adjective. However, because such nouns ARE NOUNS, they do not lose their definiteness or indefiniteness. But, they are judged, by these and other scholars, because of their position in the sentence, to be primarily qualitative. However, since the context of John 1:1c distinguishes the LOGOS from another who is HO THEOS, then "a god" serves the double purpose of highlighting the qualitative aspect of the noun, and distinguishing the THEOS the LOGOS (Jesus) 'is,' from the HO THEOS he (Jesus) is 'with' (PROS).
 

IN JOHN 1:1 THE WORD “LOGOS” IS ‘THE PERSONAL WORD,’ A TITLE OF GOD; THIS IDENTIFICATION IS SUBSTANTIATED BY STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINE IN JOHN 1: 1-18. IN VERSE 1-2 DECLARING HIS (JESUS') DISTINCT AND SUPERFINE PERSONALITY & HIS RELATION IN THE GODHEAD

(pros, “with,” not mere company, but the most communion), -v- 3 His deity, creative power; in verse 14 His  incarnation (became flesh, expressing His voluntary  act, the reality and totally of His Human NATURE, and His Glory.

This point is very important to our discussion regarding trinity. At John 1:1 we read how John himself distinguishes the "logos" (Jesus) from the one with whom he existed, {note he existed} namely HO THEOS, NOT in terms of trinitarian "presented" as in persons, but rather in terms of "theos." {JESUS WAS IN THE SPIRIT FORM WITH HIS FATHER BEFORE HIS INCARNATION} For if John did not do so, then Jesus would have to be the same person as "the God" with whom he was with! (see above) NO WHERE does the Bible define, or use the word "God," as three persons who share the same substance.

NOT TRUE!! THERE ARE MANY PASSAGES THAT GIVE JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT THE SAME QUALITIES AS GOD THE FATHER. THEY ARE ALL OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENT AND OMNISCIENT.

JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER – BUT THE SON WITHIN THE SAME GODHEAD AS HIS FATHER. THIS IS THE POINT THAT WT DOES NOT TEACH, BUT THEY TRY EVER SO HARD TO SAY THAT GOD HAS 3 HEADS & NOT 3 PERSONS. THEY DRUM THIS IN SO MUCH & AS INDIVIDUALS AREN’T ALLOWED TO QUESTION THIS TEACHING – IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR INDIVIDUAL JW’s TO UNDERSTAND IT.

REMEMBER  THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN NOR HEARD THE FATHER JESUS TELLS US THAT IN JOHN 6:46 & JOHN TELLS US IN JOHN 1:18 . THE ONE GOD THAT IS SPEAKING IN THE OT IS JESUS HIMSELF.

The English indefinite articles ("a", "an") are sometimes quite effective in bringing out the qualitative aspect of the noun, but in this case it, again, also serves the purpose of distinguishing the LOGOS from HO THEOS. That is what John did, and that is what any translation of his work should do as well.

BUT HE IS STILL “GOD” WITHIN THE GODHEAD – THAT IS SAME “NATURE” AS HIS FATHER. WE NEVER SAY ANYTHING DIFFERENT – WT DOES & DRUMS IT IN TO THE INDIVIDUAL JW’s SO THAT THEY CAN NOT UNDERSTAND IT ANY OTHER WAY. A MAN IS JUST AS HUMAN AS THE MAN IS.

JUST AS MY SON IS SAME AS ME WITHIN THE HUMANITY OF OUR NATURE – SO IS JESUS SAME AS HIS FATHER WITHIN THE SPIRITUAL NATURE OF GODHEAD.

PLEASE READ OUR SUBJECT ON “WHY JESUS HAD TO BE GOD & NOT AN ANGEL” DOUG IF THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT TITLE PLEASE ALTER IT FOR US GRIN ?.

 Greg Stafford, in his book, "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, An Answer To Critics And Scholars," has this to say relative to our discussion on page 209-10 of his book:

"The primary reason NWT uses "a" in John 1:1c is to emphasize the qualitative aspect of the noun. In this way it has a similar function to "a" in John 6:70. However, while the syntax may be enough to argue for an indefinite qualitative understanding, the context, which specifically distinguishes the Logos, as theos, from the God (ho theos) he is "with" (pros), demands an indefinite sense for the predicate in John 1:1c. The logic of pros and the OT understanding of God forces us to distinguish between the theos the Logos is, and the theos he is "with" (the Father), otherwise you have modalism......and if we identify the two as the same "theos," then we ipso facto identify them as the same person, {WE DON’T DO THIS – WT DOES} at least from a Biblical standpoint......John begins his Gospel by identifying One who is ho theos. He uses the article here to mark a certain identity, to alert his readers that this God is the One known to them throughout the OT, even from the "beginning." Then he uses an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb to forcefully introduce another being who existed with God, and who is himself a divine being. NWT is simply bringing out the qualitative aspect of the noun emphasized by the syntax John used, as well as the indefinite sense demanded by the context, which shows a relationship between the two beings, both of whom are identified and distinguished in terms of theos."

FOR THIS TO BE SO – THEN THEY “MUST” BE OF THE SAME NATURE & STATUS – OTHERWISE IT DOES NOT HOLD WATER, BUT ONLY DENIAL OF JESUS DEITY.

The Bible nowhere says to confess Jesus as "God," but rather to confess Jesus as who he said he was, "the Son "OF" God." 1 John 4:15 brings this to our attention: "Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God."

THE NIV & KJV STATE IT LIKE THIS –

“IF ANYONE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD, GOD LIVES IN HIM AND HE IN GOD.” PLEASE NOTE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO STATEMENTS. GOD DOES NOT LIFE IN ‘UNION WITH’ YOU BUT HE LIVES IN YOU AND YOU IN HIM. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PASSAGES. WHEN GOD IS LIVING IN YOU TO GOD LIVING IN UNION WITH YOU. PLEASE CHECK YOUR KIT AND YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE WORDS UNION WITH AREN’T THERE IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK, BUT THE GB TRANSLATORS INSERTED THEM.

 So, the question is: "Do we confess Jesus as God, or do we confess Jesus as the "Son "of" God?" Remember, the writer of 1 John 4:15, is the very SAME writer of John 1:1

SON OF GOD IS THE SAME AS GOD’S SON, WHICH MAKES HIM GOD BY NATURE.

THAT’S LIKE SAYING THAT ‘SON OF HUMAN’ IS SOMEHOW DIFFERENT TO ‘HUMAN SON’.

BY NATURE ‘SON OF HUMAN’ IS JUST AS HUMAN AS HIS FATHER. THEY ARE CO-EQUAL BY THEIR HUMAN NATURE.

NOW WE WILL GO INTO GREEK GRAMMAR OF JOHN 1:1

 “ In the beginning {or origin, Greek, arche} was the Word {Logos} and the Word was with God {Ton Theon} and the Word was God {Theos}.”

THE UNDERLINED PART IS IN QUESTION HERE & NOT THE PRECEDING PART TO IT!

Contrary to the translations of the Emphatic Diaglott and the NWT of the Holy Scriptures, the Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt what so ever that this is the only possible rendering of the text.  The subject of the sentence is ‘Word’ {Logos}, the verb, was. There can be no direct object following was since according to the grammatical usage in transitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back to the subject, in this case, ‘Word’ {Logos}. In fact, the late New Testament Greek scholar, Colwell, formulated a rule which clearly states that a definite predicate nominative {in the case, Theos – God} never takes an article when it precedes the verb {was} as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for Theos {God} and to translate it ‘ a god’ is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since ‘Theos’ is the predicate nominative of ‘was’ in the third sentence – clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word {Logos}. Christ, then, if He is the Word ‘made flesh’ {John 1:14} can be no one else except God unless the Greek text and consequently God’s Word be denied.

SCRIPTURE DOES IN FACT TEACH THAT THE FULL AND EQUAL DEITY OF CHRIST. WHY THEN IS SO MUCH MADE OF THIS ONE VERSE?

IT IS PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE SURPRISE EFFECT DERIVED FROM THE SHOW OF PSUEDOSCHOLARSHIP IN THE USE OF THE FAMILIAR TEXT. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE WITH ‘THEOS’ DOES NOT MEAN THAT ‘a god’ OTHER THAN THE ONE TRUE GOD IS MEANT.

PLEASE EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES WHERE THE ARTICLE IS NOT USED WITH ‘THEOS’ AND SEE IF THE RENDERING ‘ a god’ MAKES SENSE: Mat 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35; Luke 1:78; 2:40; John 1:6,12,13,18; 3:2,21; 9:16,33; Romans 1:7,17,18; 1 Cor 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11,13; Titus 1:1 and many, many more. THE ‘ a god’ CONTENTION PROVES TO WEAK AND IS INCONSISTENT. TO BE CONSISTENT IN THIS RENDERING OF ‘a god’, THE WT WOULD HAVE TO TRANSLATE EVERY INSTANCE WHERE THE ARTICLE IS ABSENT AS ‘a god {nominative}, of a god {genitive}, to or for a god {dative}, etc.’

THIS THEY DO NOT DO IN MAT 5:9; 6:24; LUKE 1:35; JOHN 1:6 AND THE ABOVE MENTIONED VERSES.

YOU CANNOT HONESTLY RENDER ‘THEOS’ a god IN JOHN 1:1 AND ‘THEOU’ of God
{JEHOVAH} IN MAT 5:9; LUKE 1:35,78; JOHN 1:6 etc, WHEN ‘THEOU’ {GENITIVE CASE} OF THE SAME NOUN {SECOND DECLENSION} WITHOUT AN ARTICLE AND MUST BE RENDERED {FOLLOWING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ARGUMENT} ‘of a god’ NOT ‘of GOD’ AS BOTH THE EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT AND NWT PUT IT.

SO THEN IF JW’s MUST PERSIST IN THIS FALLACIOUS ‘a god’ RENDITION THEY CAN AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT, WHICH THEY ARE NOT, AND RENDER EVERY INSTANCE WHERE THE ARTICLE IS ABSENT IN THE SAME MANNER. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THIS, THAT JW’s USE AND REMOVE THE ARTICLE EMPHASIS WHENEVER AND WHEREVER IT SUITS THEIR FANCY REGARDLESS OF GRAMMATICAL LAWS TO THE CONTRARY.

IN THE TRANSLATION AS IMPORTANT AS GOD’S WORD, EVERY LAW MUST BE OBSERVED. {BY WALTER MARTIN, THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS.}

THE LATE DR. MENTEY PUBLICLY STATED THAT HE WAS QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT BY THE WT AND HE PERSONALLY WROTE THE WT, DECLARING THAT THERE IS NO STATEMENT IN OUR GRAMMAR THAT WAS EVER MEANT TO IMPLY THAT ‘a god’ WAS PERMISSIBLE TRANSLATION IN JOHN 1:1 AND IT IS NEITHER SCHOLARLY NOR REASONABLE TO TRANSLATE JOHN 1:1 ‘ the Word was a god’. {Michael Van Buskirk, the Scholastic Dishonesty of the WT, P.O. BOX 2067, COSTA MESA, C.A. 92626: CARIS 1976, PAGE 11} HOPE THIS CLARIFIES THE MATTER A LITTLE MORE.