The definite article and Jehovah's witnesses part 2

[JeannetteLTorres]

What desktop program are you using? I love it?

[JeannetteLTorres]

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.

[JeannetteLTorres]

@JeannetteLTorres B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

[sweetmikser]

IT COULD GO EITHER WAY. Meaning, that the "Logos" COULD be "Almighty God", but HE MAY NOT BE. In other words, it's INDEFINITE. So it's not conclusive enough. That's what hyper-trinitarians just don't get. John 1:1 does NOT clearly say that the pre-existent Logos was the Absolute God, in the sense that the Father is. If John wanted to say clearly that Christ was Almighty, he would have said "the word was HO THEOS". But he didn't. Because the Holy Spirit left it INDEFINITE.

[brainout1]

2:16 theos HAS the definite article: it covers both kardiognwsetes, and theos. If Watchtower ever claims that anarthrous usage means 'a God' or just the attributes, that's not true, as you showed.

The absence of the article still stresses the Person, but emphasizes the quality of that Person.

[sweetmikser]

@brainout1 not quite. IT COULD GO EITHER WAY. Meaning, that the "Logos" COULD be "Almighty God", but HE MAY NOT BE. In other words, it's INDEFINITE. So it's not conclusive enough. That's what hyper-trinitarians just don't get. John 1:1 does NOT clearly say that the pre-existent Logos was the Absolute God, in the sense that the Father is. If John wanted to say clearly that Christ was Almighty, he would ahve said "the word was HO THEOS". But he didn't. Because the Holy Spirit left it INDEFINITE.

[sweetmikser]

@brainout1 not quite. IT COULD GO EITHER WAY. Meaning, that the "Logos" COULD be "Almighty God", but HE MAY NOT BE. In other words, it's INDEFINITE. So it's not conclusive enough. That's what hyper-trinitarians just don't get. John 1:1 does NOT clearly say that the pre-existent Logos was the Absolute God, in the sense that the Father is. If John wanted to say clearly that Christ was Almighty, he would have said "the word was HO THEOS". But he didn't. Because the Holy Spirit left it INDEFINITE.

[sldeyo]

excellent as usual!