​REFUTING JOE VENTILLACION`S CLAIM THAT THE WORD IS SIMPLY AN IDEA

Joe Ventillacion, A scholar of the INC, claims that Jesus was simply an idea of god, A plan, before he become man. He was not an entity or a being but only an idea in the mind of god.

He used this verse:

1PETER1:20 WHO VERILY WAS FOREKNOWN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD

Joe Ventillacion then suggested a translation for John1:1,14 as illustrated below.

JOHN 1:1,14 in the beginning was the IDEA, and the IDEA was with god, and the IDEA was divine…and the IDEA become flesh…

there are three things though that falsify this concept.

JESUS WAS AN ENTITY OR BEING WHEN HE WAS THE WORD.

  • PHIL 2:6 who being in the “morphe” of god, thought it not robbery to be equal with god, but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men..

As we can see, before he took upon him the form of man, he was already in the “morphe” of god.

Morphe” is shape as defined in the strongs numbers.

Meaning, Jesus was already in the shape of god before he become man. Having a shape, suggests it is not a mere idea, as an idea is without shape. Jesus as the word, has the shape of god.

It suggests, that God too has a shape, and Jesus having the shape of god implies that they, both, have the same shape, same bodily constitution.

Why?

BEC god`s bodily constitution, in every aspect, is the shape of god. If god has a brain or blood cells, the shape of these is also the same with Jesus, same way, with all aspect of god`s constitution therefore Jesus having that shape means that Jesus has equal bodily constitution as god.

God is a spirit therefore his shape and bodily constitution is spirit

Jesus having the shape of god, means he has the shape of the spirit who is god. Therefore jesus as the word, was a spirit.

AN IDEA HAS NO SHAPE

JESUS AS THE WORD HAS A LITERAL SHAPE
They are different. Thus the word is not mere idea.They might argue and say, shape of god is the image of god which is figuratively speaking of righteousness though unbiblical, there is no proof that shape is synonymous to image. 

WHAT JOE DID WAS DISCARD MORPHE AS SHAPE, AND REPLACED IT WITH FORM AND QUOTES A DICTIONARY that MORPHE (FORM) is synonymous to eikon (image) thus making MORPHE which is supposed to be shape as FORM or image, thus putting it as a figurative form, which form is image, which is interpreted as righteousness.

The question is,

WHY CHOOSE FORM THAN SHAPE?

Joe assumed god has no shape BEC he is a spirit thus it has no physical shape.

JOE, MAY I ASK, WHERE DID GOD SAID, THAT SHAPE REFERS ONLY TO PHYSICAL SHAPE?
Nowhere.

Spirits has shape therefore as suggested by MORPHE ( shape.)
Joe said:

Inyong narinig ang tinig ngunit wala kayong nakitang anyo,”
Anyo o form yan, meaning, spirits have no form. In what sense?

THE EARTH ALSO HAS NO FORM YET IT HAS MASS.

GEN1:1-2 GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. NOW THE EARTH WAS FORMLESS…

the earth was made but yet FORMLESS.

JER4:23 I BEHELD THE EARTH (Jerusalem) AND LO IT WAS WITHOUT FORM AND VOID…

as we can see, things that have form could be considered without form In what sense? THE EARTH has MASS but no form. What does it mean? Logically, it has not yet the intended form, the god planned form…But it has its initial form….bec it has mass. THE one that Israel HEARD but could not see his form Was an angel, A spirit. It has his form an invisible form but has not manifested in visible form

Why is that?

BEC of the concept that, something with form sometimes is considered as FORMLESS or without form. Thus conclusively, we cannot say, that spirits has no literal form. BEC in reality, god has MORPHE or shape.

If morphe is shape, then it DISPROVES Joe’s claim that PHIL 2:6 speaks of FORM or image of god which is RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Why do we believe MORPHE is shape?
BEC Jesus as word was already a thinking talking being.

HEB10:5 WHEN HE COME INTO THE WORLD HE (THE WORD) SAID…A BODY (Jesus body) THOU HAS PREPARED FOR ME (word)

Some say that prepared human body was mary as a conception host for Jesus. Does it matter? When the the one coming from heaven was cognitive and talking. It was the one from heaven that talked. It was not the human body bec it was not the one that came from heaven. If the word was a thinking, talking being, then he is a person, and being BEGOTTEN by god means literally born in the manner wherein a spirit gives birth to a spirit, thus having the same nature, implies they have both the same MORPHE (shape).
AND BEC GOD WAS SEEN SITTING ON A LITERAL THRONE…

2 Chronicles 18:18

[18]Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

That is literal sitting on the literal throne as the heavenly creatures, are literally standing, meaning, they have a perceived shapes, on that actual view of reality. Only those with shape can literally sits.
THUS, GOD HAS SHAPE.
Joe said, that the form or image of god is “kabanalan” or HOLINESS.

“Tama, ang dios ay walang pisikal na anyo, pero may katangian ang dios na sentidong ito niya kalarawan ang tao at ang ating panginoong JesuCristo…sa pagiging banal kalarawan ng dios ang tao at ang ating panginoong jesucristo…

So if HOLINESS is the form or image of god, Man, having that form or image means, he is in the form of god.

HOW IS MAN HOLY?

JOHN17:17 SANCTIFY (make holy) THEM THROUGH THY TRUTH. THY WORD IS TRUTH.

to be holy is by the truth, meaning, by submitting to the truth, obeying it, you become holy thus it is necessary of works, the works of righteousness.

1PET1:22 SEEING YOU HAVE PURIFIED YOURSELVES IN OBEYING THE TRUTH…

HOLINESS THEREFORE AS A FORM OF GOD, IS INSEPARABLE OF WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. THUS THE FORM OF GOD, IS NECESSARY OF WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS  AN IDEA HAS NO WORK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS THUS ITS NOT IN THE  FORM OF GOD

Thus it was not the word…
Taking from joes perspective…!

Therefore FORM of god is not literal.  It is to be holy  by the  truth by works  of righteousness. SOME INC SAY, THE FORM OF GOD IS RIGHTEOUSNESS, joe likewise. Joe implied that the image of god is righteousness and holiness…

EFESO 4:21-24 AT ANG DAPAT MAKITA SA INYO AY ANG BAGONG PAGKATAO NA NILIKHANG KALARAWAN NG DIOS, KALARAWAN NG KANYANG  KATWIRAN AT KABANALAN.

What is righteousness?

IT GOES WITH ACT OF GOODNESS.

ISAIAH 32:17 AND THE WORK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALL BE PEACE…

Therefore, taking from their idea, Jesus as the word having the shape of god, implies, he has righteousness of god, therefore, the word has righteousness which are necessary of work of righteousness such that of god.

RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NECESSARY OF ITS WORK

Bec how could we know what is right without the basis to know which is right–its work? Thus the RIGHTEOUSNESS of god which is the image or FORM of the word is not absent of its work…An idea has no work of righteousness therefore it is not the word. Jesus and man, having both the same image of god, therefore are holy and righteous, which holiness and righteousness is necessary of works.

ISAIAH 32:17 AND THE WORK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALL BE PEACE…

Conclusively, MORPHE (form) of god, could either be literal FORM as implied by a more reliable definition of MORPHE which is shape or it could be figurative, as HOLINESS or righteousness. Either way, it refutes the concept of the word as mere idea. Firstly bec it has no literal form. Secondly bec it has no works of righteousness.
Clearly, this reality debunks the scholar`s concept.

  • . HEB 10:5 Wherefore when he come into the world, he said, sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, BUT A BODY THOU HAST PREPARED ME…

“A BODY (man) THOU HAST PREPARED ME (word)”

The word when he come to earth and before becoming man, speaks and talks, saying, A body you prepared for me. It suggests mental function. It suggests cognition. Therefore the word is not simply an idea, bec it has mental and cognitive function. An idea cannot think or talk. But they might say, the IDEA talking is a personification. It’s like a tree talking as figure of speech.

No. It cannot be. God is truthful. He cannot lie. Personification is a lie. It’s not truthful.

Why?

BEC saying a tree talks or an idea talks, is not true. It’s a lie. God cannot lie thus he don’t use personification in his words.

TITUS1:2 GOD CANNOT LIE

By this reality that the word talks refutes the concept that it is mere idea. An idea cannot talk. God used metaphor and metonymy in his words, as symbolism yet personification is assuming that the idea has talked to have said, even as personification, a body you prepared for me, when in reality he has no cognitive function. By that reality, it refutes Joe’s misguided rhetorics.

  •  REV19:11, 13 and I saw heaven opened and behold a white horse, AND HE THAT SAT UPON HIM WAS CALLED FAITHFUL AND TRUE…AND HIS NAME IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD

If the word is an idea, why is Jesus as an entity, called as the word of god, not a mere idea? This proves that being a word is not an idea bec the word is an entity, someone existing with life, as suggested, the word of god rides upon a white horse.

BOTH JOHN1:1 AND REV19:11,13 SPEAKS OF THE WORD OF GOD, YET ONE SAY, IT IS A LIVING ENTITY AND NOT AN IDEA.

It therefore concludes, that the word is a living person. As we can read, the word of god is a name of an entity thus the word in John1:1 is a name of an entity, A living person. It is not a mere idea.

THESE THREE POINTS, I BELIEVE FALSIFIES THE CONCEPT THAT THE WORD IS MERE IDEA OR PLAN.
How about their basis that Jesus was a mere idea in the mind of god, this idea was realized when Jesus was born?

Their basis:

1PETER1:20 WHO VERILY WAS FOREKNOWN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD

true. Jesus as man, as a lamb for redemption, was foreknown by God before the reality happens. It doesn’t mean, Jesus has not pre-existed as a living person with god before becoming man? Indeed he has as suggested above, Jesus has the shape of god, Jesus as the word can talk…these sufficiently tell us that when god foreknown the coming function of Jesus as redeemer, Jesus was already a living entity with him.

Lastly,

I’ll address why joe believes  Jesus was not equal to god,

FIL 2:6 said Jesus is equal with god.

Joe said it’s wrong quoting this:

ISAIAH46:5, 9 TO WHOM WILL YE LIKEN ME AND MAKE ME EQUAL AND COMPARE ME THAT WE MAY BE LIKE…

Yes, noone is equal to god BUT THAT IS CONTEXTUALLY REFERRING TO IDOLS. NO IDOLS, WORSHIPPED AS GOD, CAN EQUAL GOD as stated below:

ISAIAH 40:18-21 TO WHOM WILL YOU THEN COMPARE GOD? WHAT IMAGE WILL YOU COMPARE HIM TO? AS FOR AN IDOL A CRAFTSMAN CAST IT…DO YOU NOT KNOW? HAVE YOU NOT HEARD?

It’s as though god is saying do you not know that an IDOL is made by a craftsman, to whom among idols will you liken me, they have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear, (as written in other verses)?

Or, it could be that, as a person, its function, is unique–the most high yet as god, jesus is equally god with him.
Why is that?
BEC JESUS WAS EQUAL TO GOD IN ASPECT OF NATURE.
WHY DID JESUS SAY, THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I?
GOD is a nature, the spirit as nature is what is called god.

Why?

GOD HAS A SHAPE. and part of the nature of god, is that, god has no function as a servant, logically speaking, Jesus lowering himself to a state of servant, reduced his equality as god. BUT SUCH EQUALITY WAS RESTORED AS JESUS SAID

JOHN17:5 GLORIFY me with the glory I have with you before the world was…

Likewise, power and authority, is a nature of god, they were equal as god but not in power and authority.  GOD almighty is the source of all things. Jesus was not. GOD is head over Jesus.

How so?

It is inherent that all MAN are equally man, and our functions as part of our nature are equally the same, our hands functions for grasping, our feet functions for walking, our mind for thinking. Our minds don’t function as our feet likewise god don’t function as servants, logically, speaking.

THOUGH POWER IS INHERENT A NATURE OF GOD ALMIGHTY It is not equal with Jesus, Thus when saying, they are equally god, they were also father and son, naturally, in essence having different power and authority, one as father, the other as SON So as a man and his children are equally man, but having different power and authority.

Equally man, in essence, of our bodily function, our mind has the same function, so is with our heart, eyes, hand etc.. though differently used. Some hands were used for killing others used for farming… yet as a hand, it has the same function, Our mind functions equally the same, that is equally to think, though our thinking, what we think is not equal

So likewise with god…

IN THAT ESSENCE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY, GOD almighty is greater than Jesus but as god, they are equally the same, as equally functional god.
Moreover, joe quoted this:

ISAIAH46:9 I AM GOD THERE IS NONE ELSE, I AM GOD THERE IS NONE LIKE ME

implying, that Jesus is not god bec there is none else, none like god.
Wrong. There is none else or none like god, only to Israel during mosaic era, as it say:

HOSEA 13:4 I AM THE LORD THY GOD FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT, THOU SHALT KNOW NO OTHER GOD BUT ME…

that is to Israel, noone else is WORSHIPPED as god none else is like god but that is in reference only for israel As they were commanded to recognize one god Its like saying, i am god, there is none else, there is none like me for israel, but when Jesus dispensation comes, he introduced himself as true god,

IN THE MORPHE (shape) OF GOD

implying, an equally functional nature-the nature of the true god.

©a®e

Advertisements

DEBUNKING JOE VENTILACIONs JOHN 1:1 TON THEOS AND HO THEOS

The Iglesia Ni Cristo Cyberspace Watchdog shared Joe Ventilacion‘s post.

DEBUNKING JOE VENTILACIONs JOHN 1:1 TON THEOS AND HO THEOS!!!
.(Refer to Joe’s argument at the bottom⬇)

.
JOHN 1:1 AND THE WORD WAS WITH TON THEOS (THE GOD)

Joe said that whenever TON THEOS or HO THEOS (THE GOD) is used, it refers to noone but god almighty.
He based his conclusion from his chosen scholars view which are rather unbiblical. He picked scholars that would support his faith discarding others who were his opposite, am i correct joe? Nevertheless, it is weak, It has no clear verification either from biblical context or Greek grammar and definition.
He quoted a Greek grammarian:

“In many instances when the definite article HO occurs before Theos, god, particular reference is made to god the father”

As you can notice, Joe was stupid to ignore that the grammarian’s view he used as basis, did not deny that HO THEOS is used for god the father but not exclusively, as it is used for god only in many instances, but not in all instances and notably, it did not say it could not be used for others, esp. Jesus, which open possibility that it could refer too, to jesus.
JESUS IS LIKEWISE HO THEOS OR TON THEOS.

As I said, Joe failed to show that TON THEOS is exclusively for god almighty either in Greek grammar or definition or by biblical context.

Without certain basis, he still concluded, giving a weak assessment.
He said:

Therefore whenever we encounter in the Greek text that the word THEOS is exclusively introduced by the article HO it is referring to the father.”

The basis for his conclusion was a scholar commentary which is simply an opinion devoid of any grammatical verification that HO THEOS either by grammar or Greek definition refers ONLY to god almighty.
Biblically though, he assumed a rather self interpreted view of JOHN 17:3 as an authoritative force to conclude HO THEOS or TON THEOS are exclusive description of god almighty.

JOHN17:3 THE ONLY TRUE GOD

Therefore as he assumed, there is no other true god than himself no other TON THEOS.

JOE, WHERE IS GOD’S EXPLANATION THAT THE ONLY TRUE GOD MEANS THERE IS NO OTHER TRUE GOD THAN HIM?

You assumed an interpretation without considering context such as 1 JOHN 5:20 which say, Jesus is the true god and eternal life.
JESUS IS LIKEWISE HO THEOS OR TON THEOS.
Here is the proof:

EXPLAINING JOHN17:3—THE ONLY TRUE GOD

The concept of a single God comes from this verse:

Jn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

That concept is biblically out of context. It is limited in its essence of truth thus partially as a verse john 17:3 appeared as expressing a single god concept but digging on from a more solid basis, that concept is weak.
The concept expresses that god almighty is the only true god, and no one else, but if we are to refer on a more comprehensive basis, we come to the conclusion that such concept is shattered by the fact that jesus is too a true god.
How is jesus a true god?

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come…This is the true God, and eternal life.

1Jn 1:2that eternal life, which was with the Father,

Jn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life (eternal).

As we can see, the true god is also the eternal life, and that eternal life is not the father but someone with him, who jesus claimed was himself, the life eternal. So rationally, jesus is the true god.
The problem is, jesus likewise claimed the father is the only true god, how do we view it in terms of biblical harmony?
Reconciling the verses would recommend, a necessary contextual analysis on the concept that, jesus is the true god also, which make the idea of the only true god, as not intending to really mean a single true god indeed bec if it is so, that it means a single true god, then there is a contradiction, which we know is not plausible in the bible.
Harmony is necessary thus at this point, let us see, what was the intended meaning of the expression “the only true god”?
When Jesus claimed the father as the only true god, he was looking up to heaven,

Jn 17:1 . These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Jn 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Jn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

so when he said the father is the only true god, he was referring his claim to heaven, as the point wherein he want to stress the location of his subject, the father, is in heaven, so when he said, the only true god, he meant is as, the only true god in heaven—
Or in other words, the father is the only true god left there in heaven,
As the other true god, is on the earth.

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come…This is the true God, and eternal life.

Bec how could the father be the only true god, in essence, the only single true god, when jesus , too, is the true god?
It only means, the concept of a single god, is not actually how it was intended to mean.
What it really means is, the only true god would refer to god’s location as the reference point of saying the only true god, meaning, the only true god would really means the only true god present in heaven.
Or in tagalog, in essence it would mean:
Ang nagiisang tunay na dios na nasa langit”

That view is correct, if we want biblical harmony.
Accept it or not, this is how the Holy Spirit taught us. How about you? How do you explain it?

EXPLAINING 1JOHN 5:20—THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

An analytical interpretation:
“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding”
What is that understanding?
“that we may know him that is true”
That is the father, the first true character in the verse.
“and we are in him that is true”
The second true character in the verse who is that? The father’s son.
“in his Son Jesus Christ”
So jesus Christ is the second true character in the verse.
Why?
Bec he is the one referred to as “we are in him”, as clarified, “IN” his son jesus Christ.

THAT WE MAY KNOW HIM THAT IS TRUE (the first true)
WE ARE IN HIM (jesus) THAT IS TRUE
IN HIS (first true) SON JESUS CHRIST

“This is the true God, and eternal life.”

So when it say, this is the true god and eternal life, it was referring to the son that would come and give us an understanding who is true–jesus and god!

The mere fact is, nowhere in the bible did it refer to the father as eternal life, whereas that true god is eternal life, and we see jesus as eternal life, so it’s certainly that it was referred to him as true god.

Jn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life (eternal)

A scholar said:
“The Greek of 5,20 has only the true (one) and reads literally:
We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we know the true (one) and we are in the true (one),in his Son Jesus Christ.This (one) is the true God and eternal life.It is clear from this that the true (one) is God throughout.Christ is his Son.In the final sentence this (one) most naturally refers still to God,not to Christ,as some have suggested.”
THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES
BY: WILLIAM LOADER
PAGE:79.

In the final sentence this (one) most naturally refers still to God,not to Christ,as some have suggested”

The scholar admits that there is some who prefer in the exegetical concept of jesus Christ as true god, whether they be scholars or not, the mere fact that the scholar recognized them proves that it is an established belief for some to believe Christ is the true god.

Which between them is correct?

We in the church prefer to believe in the second option, jesus is true god and eternal life.
Why?
He is the eternal life, whereas, god almighty is not. Therefore jesus is the true god.

1jn5:20 This is the true god and eternal life
Jn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life (eternal)
1Jn 1:2 that eternal life, which was with the Father,

As you can see, Jesus is the eternal life, which eternal life is with the father, suggesting that the father is not the eternal life, suggesting further that the father is not the true god in 1JOHN5:20, as that true god is also the eternal life,
Jesus being the eternal life suggests that he is the true god.

Joe still failed to support the one true god concept by using 1COR 8:6 which say:
BUT TO US THERE IS ONE GOD, THE FATHER OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS…

He again assumed his position as interpreter, by his talent perhaps learned in Harvard, that is, by his self-interpretation.
He self-interpreted it as definite single god. Bro eli soriano though, prudently considered the context that Jesus too is true god thereby concluding in harmony that one god, simply means, that there is one god who is father and from whom are all things, meaning, only one god is the Father who is the source of everything. Jesus is god but not the source of everything.

Still joe further stretched his theological Greek genius by saying:

“The article is frequently used to identify monadic or one of a kind nouns such as “the devil” “the sun” “the Christ”. The monadic article points out a unique object, for example, “the sun” is monadic example bec there is only one sun.
Since the term god is monadic noun (one of a kind) it is always introduced by the article in the Greek. The monadic article points out the identity of the unique or the only true god in the second clause of JOHN 1:1.”

Look at how joe entangled his words, he said:
The article is frequently used to identify monadic…nouns”
“Since the term god is monadic noun…it is always introduced by the article…”

Slip of the tongue, joe?
Frequently is not similar to always…

Which is correct, the article is frequently or always used to introduced monadic nouns? Which? Frequently or always?

Joe, the scholar, is perhaps confused, thus to end his delusion, let us ask him,
IS THEOS DEFINITELY A MONADIC NOUN, AT ALL TIMES?

joe said, the term god is monadic noun.
He has not shown any proof though, Greek terminology or pasugo…
He based it, I presumed, from john 17:3 the only true god, thereby concluding god as monadic noun.

I have shown above that its false as Jesus too, is the true god thus god is not monadic noun, in essence of individuality but then, monadic in reference to their being collective one–that is, as one god.

I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE John10:30

The article is used to introduced monadic noun is not always true, such as
THE PRESIDENT
It is not expressive of article-monadic noun relation, bec THE PRESIDENT is a description of all individual presidents and not exclusive to one
Thus THE GOD, in that essence, could be a title of more than one.
Is the term god monadic or not?

YES AND NO as I expressed above.
Jesus in Psalms45:6-7 in Hebrew was referred to as gods as plural of respect, a deity, a god, lacking the article thus it is not monadic. Though its counterpart in Heb1:8-9 referred to jesus as THE GOD.
Jesus in 1JOHN 5:20 is called THE TRUE GOD, thus it is monadic..
Therefore god could either be monadic noun or not.
Joe admitted that THEOS is not always monadic by quoting a scholar, he said:

“In many instances when the definite article HO occurs before Theos, god, particular reference is made to god the father”

Meaning, if THEOS is monadic at all times, then, whenever it is used with the article HO, it should always refer to god almighty but as the scholar admits, it is not always the case, but only in many instances, and not in all instances, thus giving the reality that THEOS is not always monadic.

COULD THEOS OR GOD BE AN ADJECTIVE TO CONFORM TO JOEs DELUSION THAT THE RIGHT TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS “THE WORD IS DIVINE”?

here is joe:

“The term THEOS (god) in the third clause of john1:1, in the absence of the article, is functioning as an adjective..
Are there no Greek grammarians who also advocate this position?…

The closing words of v.1 should be translated THE LOGOS WAS DIVINE. HERE THE WORD THEOS HAS NO ARTICLE THUS GIVING IT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AN ADJECTIVE.–STRACHAN ROBERT

Joe rather preferred a scholar’s view but then let us see how his conclusion is weakened by one of his source. Joe quoted it but denying its intellectual logic that softened Joe’s conclusion that john 1:1 should have been THE LOGOS WAS DIVINE as THEOS lacks the supporting article to make it a noun.
He quoted:

now when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun, THAT NOUN BECOMES MUCH MORE LIKE AN ADJECTIVE—BARCLAY WILLIAM…

Joe, by that scholar’s view then concocted the belief that THEOS which the scholar called as noun which becomes more like an adjective, is therefore functioning like an adjective thus properly, it should have been translated as divine, thus the third clause should have been, THE WORD IS DIVINE instead of THE WORD IS GOD.
BUT WAIT…
DID NOT THE SCHOLAR SAID, THE NOUN BECOMES MUCH MORE LIKE AN ADJECTIVE?

MUCH MORE?

Meaning, not completely an adjective?
Therefore, it still it has traces of being a noun?

Thus rationally, the percentage of being a noun is still there, thus THEOS could either be an adjective, divine, in a greater percentage or degree as implied by saying, “MUCH MORE” or it could be a noun, god, in a lesser percentage or degree, but still, its being a noun, is not invalid
Thus THEOS could also be noun, god…in essence, THE TRUE GOD as i indicated above.
HOW COME?

JESUS AS THE WORD NEVER CHANGED FROM THE BEGINNING.

HEB 13: 7-8 REMEMBER THEM WHICH HAVE RULE OVER YOU, WHO HAVE SPOKEN UNTO YOU THE “WORD OF GOD”…JESUS CHRIST THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER…

I have shown earlier that jesus is the true god, thus being, the same yesterday, today and forever, suggests his being true god as the same yesterday, today and forever, which is rather consistent, with john 1:1. The human body is not the same yesterday, today and forever as it was mortal but now it is immortal therefore it referred to other than the human body but to the god (the word) inside the human body. That god is immutable yesterday, today and forever in terms of being the word, that is, as the truth.
THE WORD WAS GOD...meaning he was the word–a god, yesterday, as he is forever.

By these simple hints of logic, it is concluded that Joe’s affirmation of his faith, remains a fact, that even scholars sometimes are stupid.
No offense, Truth speaks, Jesus being in its nature as the word is god, which word–the truth is the same yesterday and forever. It produce the concept that he was forever immutable as the word or the truth, and being god, implies he is god forever. And being cognitive suggests the word as a thinking person.
Not all scholars have the same concept of truth, oftentimes, they contradicts each other thus who knows who of them are speaking correctly? WHO OF THEM ARE REALLY LEARNED OF THE TRUTH? Only the true church knows, as it is the foundation of truth.

Lastly, joe reiterated that john 1:1 speaks of LOGOS as an idea.
It cannot be true.

HOW COME THE WORD IS NOT AN IDEA?

BEC HE COULD TALK.

HEB 10:5 WHEN HE COME INTO THE WORLD HE (THE WORD) SAID…..A BODY THOU HAST PREPARED FOR ME (THE WORD)

Therefore validating the fact that the word is an entity a being who, being able to talk suggest it as a person which existed in the beginning with god as reiterated in john 1:1-2.
Logically, jesus as the word, a person, is the one referred to in john 1:1-2 and being the word yesterday today and forever suggests the word being the true god is the true god even in the beginning with god is consistent when it say, the word is with god, the word is theos, theos being the true god, as illustrated above.
.
.
#inactive_mcgi

Below is Joe’s stand as subject of my rebuttal ⬇

Joe Ventilacion

DOES JOHN 1:1 TEACH THAT JESUS CHRIST IS A TRUE GOD?

One of my readers of my postings in Facebook has sent me a request to write an article about John 1:1 which he sees as one of the favorite verses being used by those who believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God. Below is his request to me:

Clark Felarca Good morning po Ka Joe, pwede po bang gawan niyo din po ng article yung paborito po nilang John 1:1, madalas po kasi na ang talatang ito po ang madalas at paborito pong gamitin ng mga (huwad) na mangangaral para po patunayan diumano na ang Panginoong JesuCristo daw po ay tunay na Diyos. Alam po natin na marami po ang nagkamali ng pang unawa sa talatang ito. Tama naman po ang nakasulat sa talata, ang mali lang po ay yung kanilang pang unawa. Sumasampalataya po ako na IISA lang po ang TUNAY NA DIYOS at yun po ay ang AMA na ipinakilala sa atin ng ng Kaniyang ANAK, ang Panginoong JesuCristo. Ang may ganito pong paniniwala ayon po sa Biblia ay ikapagtatamo po ng buhay na walang hanggan (Juan 17:1, 3; 20:17). Nais ko po na gumawa po kayo ng article na ukol po sa talatang (Juan 1:1) upang marami po ang maliwanagan at mamulat sa katotohanan. Maraming salamat po Ka Joe.. God bless po.

Although the Iglesia Ni Cristo does not recognize Jesus Christ as God, we highly recognize him based on what the Bible teaches about him. The Bible teaches that God made Him as our Lord and appointed him to be our Savior (Acts 2:36; 5:31). He is our Mediator (1st Timothy 2:5) and the Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18). We serve and worship him since it is God who commanded him to be worshipped (Philippians 2:9-11). However, even though he possesses special attributes which were given to him by God, these special qualities do not qualify or make him as God.

WHO IS THE TRUE GOD THAT THE BIBLE TEACHES?

When we speak about the true God, we are not referring to Jesus Christ but to the Father who is in heaven whom Jesus Christ introduced during his mediatory prayer as “the only true God” (John 17:1, 3 NLT), a Supreme Being who is Eternal and Immortal (1st Timothy 1:17), All-knowing (1st John 3:20) and All-powerful (Genesis 17:1). The Father is also the Father of Jesus’ disciples and the God of Jesus is also the God of his disciples (John 20:17). Jesus is not a Trinitarian nor the early disciples because the same teaching was echoed by Apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians (8:6) wherein he says, “But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him” (NLT).

Since the Father is the only true God, and Jesus Christ is not the Father, therefore, Jesus Christ is not the true God.

Whenever our Trinitarian friends would be pressed hard to explain how do they understand the phrase “the only true God” in John 17:3, what they normally do is to dodge the issue by saying that the verse does not say that Jesus Christ is not God. Although it is true that John 17:3 does not say that Jesus Christ is not God, however, it rules out the possibility that he is God because of his qualifying statement that the Father is the “only” true God. If the Father is the “only” true God, how could Christ be in the picture? Jesus Christ is not the “true” God because he was pointing to somebody else as the “only” true God.

To avoid the issue, our Trinitarian friends would cite John 1:1 as their proof text in justifying their belief in the so-called divinity of Christ. Therefore, it behooves us to examine John 1:1 since this is the biblical text which they usually use to prove their point. In our discussion, I will try my best to simplify the Greek terms so the readers who have not studied biblical Greek or who are not familiar with the language shall be able to understand my presentation.

In most English versions, John 1:1 was translated this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

How was John 1:1 rendered in the Greek New Testament? Let us take a look at how this was written in most Greek manuscripts:

Transliteration (in Erasmian pronunciation):
En archeé eén ho Lógos kaí ho Lógos eén prós tón Theón kaí theós eén ho Lógos

The argument of our Trinitarian friends would run like this: The Logos or Word mentioned in this verse is Jesus Christ. Since the third clause says “the Word was God” then substituting the term Word with Jesus Christ, they would read the verse to mean that Jesus Christ was God in the beginning.

It should be noted that there is mention of the term Jesus Christ in this verse. It is simply an assumption of our Trinitarian friends that the Word is Jesus Christ. Granting but not conceding that the Word is Jesus, the second clause mentions that the Logos was with God. If the Word is Jesus and was with God, it appears that Jesus is different from God because the verse says that the Logos was “with” God. How could Christ be that same God when it says that the Logos is “with” God? Who is this God who was “with” the Logos in the second clause? Obviously it is not Jesus Christ since they believe he is the Word. They could not be the same person because a person could not be “with” another person if he is the same person!

THE IDENTITY OF THE GOD IN THE SECOND CLAUSE OF JOHN 1:1

Let’s continue to find out the identity of the God mentioned in the second clause by going to the Greek text for clarification.

What is the Greek word for the term God in the nominative case – the subject of the sentence? It is O THEOS which is pronounced as HO THEOS in the Erasmian pronunciation. The Greek letter OMICRON (o) before the term THEOS is an article in Greek which corresponds to the article “THE” in English. Therefore, the Greek phrase HO THEOS is translated as THE GOD in English.

However, during the process of translation into English, the article THE is no longer included in the translation but is left out. A Greek grammarian will explain to us why:

Many times, Theos occurs with the def. art. ho, but it is not so rendered in translation because, in Eng., we never refer to God as the God, except if He is designated as belonging to someone specifically, such as the God of Abraham (Matt. 22:32). (Zodhiates, Spiros, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN (1992), p. 730)

Going back to the second clause, is there an article before the term God in the Greek text? Yes. The word for God is TON THEON. Why is it now TON THEON instead of HO THEOS? Because when the word God is in the accusative case – the direct object in the sentence, the HO THEOS becomes TON THEON. That’s the way the Greek language was structured. You could see this arrangement in the Greek text of the second clause of John 1:1 but you could not notice it in the English translation since the article “the” was not translated in John 1:1b but was left out during the process of translation.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE

What is the significance of Greek article before the term God? Another Greek grammarian will explain to us the significance of the Greek article:

When Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is theos and the definite article is ho. (Barclay, William, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, The Westminster Press, Kentucky, 2001, p. 46)

Therefore, when it says O THEOS in Greek, it means THE GOD in English. When it says TON THEON, it also means THE GOD. THE O is an article in the nominative case (subject of the sentence) and TON is an article in the accusative case (direct object).

What is the usage of the article in the Greek language?

(1) The article is used far more frequently than any other word in the Greek NT, almost 2,000 times, or one out of seven words. (Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1996), pp. 207, 223)

Since there is an article (TON) before the term God in the second clause of John 1:1 (TON THEON), it is an indication which tells us that the “true” God is identified in the second clause. Who is the “true” God introduced by the article TON in the second clause? A Greek grammarian will tell us about him:

In many instances when the def. art. ho occurs before Theos, God, particular reference is made to God the Father (Zodhiates, Spiros, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN (1992), p. 730).

Therefore, whenever we encounter in the Greek text that the word THEOS is introduced by the article HO, it is referring to the Father. Going back to the second clause of John 1:1, the TON THEON is referring to the Father. We are not surprise about this truth since it was Christ himself who taught us that the Father is the “only” true God in John 17:3.

Considering this fact, how should the second clause be translated into English? If we would utilize the interlinear translation (a word-for-word translation), the second clause would be translated this way: AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD.

What else is the significance of the article especially when it is being placed before the noun God in the Greek text?

2. The article is frequently used to identify monadic or one-of-a-kind nouns, such as “the devil,” “the sun,” “the Christ.” The monadic article points out a unique object, for example, “the sun” is monadic because there is only one sun.

Since the term God is a monadic noun (one-of-a-kind), it is always being introduced by the article in the Greek. The monadic article points out the identity of the unique or the only true God in the second clause of John 1:1. The only true God in John 1:1 is the Father. The same goes true with John 17:3 in which the article TON was used before the term THEON – TON MONON ALETHINON THEON – the only true God. The term is referring to the Father (John 17:1).

If the true God is always introduced by the article, what about the word THEOS in the third clause of John 1:1? Does it contain an article? No, it does not have an article before it. It just simply says THEOS, not HO THEOS.

What is the usage of the term THEOS in the third clause of John 1:1 in the absence of an article? A Greek grammarian will explain to us its function:

Now when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun, that noun becomes much more like an adjective (Barclay, William, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, The Westminster Press, Kentucky (2001) p. 46).

The term THEOS (God) in the third clause of John 1:1, in the absence of the article, is functioning as an adjective. It is not functioning as a NOUN but as an ADJECTIVE. If it is a NOUN, then John 1:1 will come up with two Gods instead of just one since the second clause has already the TON THEON. Therefore, THEOS in the third clause is an ADJECTIVE.

Are there Greek grammarians who also advocate this position? Take a look at how other bible scholars put it:

The closing words of v. 1 should be translated, ‘the Logos was divine’. Here the word theos has no article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective (Strachan, Robert, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment, page 99).

“Where THEOS without the article, is used as an attribute, simply expresses the notion of kind. It is an adjective . . .” (Scott, Frank, Preacher’s Complete Homiletic, p. 19).

Are there Bible translators who favor the rendition that the Greek word THEOS is an adjective (divine) instead of a noun? Take a look at two of the translations made by bible scholars:

The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. (A New Translation by James Moffatt)

In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. (A New Translation by Edgar J. Goodspeed)

Therefore, if the term God in the third clause of John 1:1 functions as an adjective, our Trinitarian friends could no longer summon this verse as a proof-text that our Lord Jesus Christ is God. This type of understanding (that the verse does not support the alleged deity of Christ) does not compromise the biblical truth about the absolute oneness of God as taught by Christ in John 17:1, 3. Once the verse is understood as promoting the alleged deity of Christ, our Trinitarian friends are face with a big dilemma: how to reconcile the fact that the second clause teaches that the one true God is the Father and the third clause portrays a different God whom they believe is Jesus Christ. They will be guilty of polytheism and that would be the biggest thorn on their eyes which they could not remove by themselves if they would continue to insist that Jesus Christ is the THEOS in the third clause of John 1:1.

On the contrary, if our Trinitarian friends would only humble themselves and reject the Trinity doctrine then adopt the teaching of Christ concerning the absolute oneness of God the Father, they will not be facing an arduous task of trying to reconcile a troublesome position. Hopefully, they could see the error of supporting a wrong doctrine and would eventually accept the biblical truth presented by Christ and His apostles that the Father is the only true God (John 17:1, 3; 1st Corinthians 8:6 TEV). By doing so, they shall have the knowledge that will give them eternal life.

WHY DOES IT SAY THAT THE WORD WAS GOD OR THE LOGOS WAS DIVINE?

The English term WORD is LOGOS in Greek. What are the several meanings of this term?

a word, not in the grammatical sense of a mere name, but a word as embodying a conception or idea (Abbott, Ezra, A Manual of Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, (1937) pp. 270-71).

It should be noted that the Greek term LOGOS was translated as WORD in John 1:1 in most of the English translations. However, that is the preference of Bible translators since the term LOGOS has several meanings in the New Testament. This term appeared several times in the New Testament and has different meanings. Let me quote some of its meanings as indicated in The New Analytical Greek Lexicon by Wesley J. Perschbacher, pp. 259-260:

A word, a thing uttered, speech, language, talk, converse, mere talk, wordy show, language, mode of discourse, style of speaking, a saying, a speech, an expression, form of words, formula, a thing propounded in discourse, a message, announcement, an account, statement, a written narrative, a treatise, doctrine, subject-matter, reckoning, account, a plea, a motive, reason, the word of God, the divine WORD.

As you could see from the list above, there are so many meanings of the Greek term LOGOS. If I were a Bible translator, I would render John 1:1 this way and nobody could question my translation since there is no law that would prohibit me from doing such thing. I think that my translation of John 1:1 is a rendition that would not compromise the doctrine of the absolute oneness of God. Here’s how I would translate it:

In the beginning was the idea [concept, plan] and the idea [concept, plan] was with God, and the idea [concept, plan] was divine.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE WORD [O LOGOS] OR THE IDEA [PLAN, CONCEPT] WAS WITH GOD?

The concept or the idea about Christ was with God in the beginning. It is a divine plan or concept since it is God Himself who planned about it in the beginning. When is this beginning that the LOGOS was in the mind of God or an idea, plan or concept that intellectually emanated from Him? The answer is from Apostle Peter who wrote that:

For he [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you (1st Peter 1:20 NASB).

God had the foreknowledge about Christ before the foundation of the world. This was echoed by Apostle Peter during his sermon on the day of Pentecost when he declared to the Jews:

This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross (Acts 2:23 NIV).

The Greek term used in 1st Peter 1:20 is proginōskō which means to determine on beforehand, to foreordain, to foreknow while Acts 2:23 uses the Greek term prognōsis which means previous determination, purpose. These two terms in Greek are cognates.

What does it mean that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world? To foreknow means to know something before it happens: to have knowledge or awareness that something is going to happen. So, Christ was in the mind of God, a divine idea or plan before the foundation of the world. Christ had no prior existence before he was born. When was God’s plan or idea of bringing His Son into the word materialized? When he was born of a woman (Galatians 4:4).

It is quite clear that the one true God of the Bible had in His mind the logos or the idea about Christ. Since there is only one true God, John 1:1 does not advance the concept that the logos is another God aside from the true God nor does it prove that the Lord Jesus Christ is God. In fact, this verse tells us that the only true God is the Father. Since Jesus Christ is not the Father but the Son, He is not the only true God.

March 25 at 12:28pm · Public

201 People Reached · Boost Post

Save


Victor Wood

Dyan sa Juan 1:3 ang salita ay Dyos, tingnan dn natin sa juan 1:14 kng sino yung salita, at bumaba sa piling natin… Kaya nga sabi ni kristo, Ako at ang Ama ay iisa, ang Ama ay Dyos , komo Dyos ang Ama , Dyos dn ang Anak, ito pa prueba,. Hebrew 1: 8 – Ngunit tungkol sa Anak,, tungkol sa Anak yan, Hindi tungkol ni Felix Manalo yan…… ay sinabi nya, ‘Ang iyong trono. O Dyos ay magpakilan paman. Ikaw ay magharing may katarungan, hahaha. naunsa baya mo intawon oy,, pagkaklaro kaau ug tin aw ang nahisulat sa biblya, unya panang balion… bwa

Like · Reply · Message · Delete · Report · Mar 26

Victor Wood replied · 9 replies

Valenzuela Allan

Jun LaguraTian El ZenitramKa Jeric’son NagramaKa Jon Jimenez, Ka Michael Marquez Sandoval, Ka Giordano Lorenzo, Ka Joel Casaljay, Ka Marco Rivera Agulay, Ka Daniel Gullos binabanatan po si Ka Joe Ventilacion dito.

Edited · Like · 1 · Reply · Message · Delete · Report · Mar 28 at 12:14am

Zenitram Tian El replied · 1 reply

Jimenez Ka Jon

sa sobrang haba ng cnabi lalong nagdilim

Like · 1 · Reply · Message · Delete · Report · Mar 28 at 9:18am

Write a comment…

Attach a Photo · Mention Friends