BDAG supports rendering John 1:1 as "a god"

[OldShepherd]

The fact that hundreds of years after the apostles and the Son of God himself walked the earth new concepts about God were being floated shouts heresy.

The Fathers such as John of Damascus and Gregory of Nyssa both agreed that the Trinity is a combination of Judaism and Paganism. See my quote of them and also Wolfson at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...3&postcount=53


This is the smoking gun.

This may be a violation of forum rules, if so I apologize. Mods plz edit as appropriate.

This post is a deliberate out and out LIE! The Wolfson quote, as I said in that thread, is rubbish, unless you are willing to accept without question anything he, or any other liberal, secular, scholar, says about JW. And I already know the answer to that. JWs will not accept anything said by anybody, that contradicts their teachings.

Neither Gregory of N. nor John of D. say what you claim they say. And several people have pointed out how you have quoted 2-3 sentences out-of-context. I also pointed out how you plagiarized Wolfson in the first place, presenting his argument as your own.

And once again I point out how this same argument concerning BDAG and John 1:1 was soundly rebutted here by several people about 3 years ago, and you abandoned the thread without responding to several points.

Before that it was soundly trounced by Ray Goldsmith at CARM. I happen to have Ray's complete argument. Ray said you abandoned that discussion without replying to several points.

I have links to both threads if you would care to deal with this in a forthright manner.

Hundreds of years after the apostles? In a pigs eye. Try Polycarp and Ignatius, disicples of John, the apostle, and Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp.

[Cal_Minian]

I completely disagree. There were no new cocepts in the sense that something was added to the divine revelation as it was given. However, it is not wrong at all to endeavor to try to understand the great mystery that is the Triune God.

Do you agree with Wolfson that JoD and GoN combined parts of the monotheism of the Jews and the polytheism of the Greeks to form the Trinity?

[OldShepherd]

Do you agree with Wolfson that JoD and GoN combined parts of the monotheism of the Jews and the polytheism of the Greeks to form the Trinity?

Do you agree with Wolfson that Arians, i.e. JW, combined parts of the monotheism of the Jews and the polytheism of the Greeks to form their doctrine, but you, i.e. JW, have the wrong combination according to the early church fathers, as you said in the other thread?

I'd like to see you eat that piece of cake and have it too.

[OldShepherd]

Since Cal will not acknowledge his hasty retreat, leaving this same discussion unresolved 3 years ago. I will bring the discussion to him.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this. Are you serious? How could the word "equal" possibly hurt my case? That is the exact word used in Philip 2:6 and has the meaning which I posted. And this meaning is supported overwhelmingly by the church fathers. But of course they are secular and not worth considering, that is unless they seem to support the WBTS teachings, such as the one out-of-context reference to Dg. (Diognetus) in BDAG

No, Danker does NOT say that the Trinitarian definition violates anything. Neither word definition, not Trinitarian appears in that quote. What Danker's statement implies is that "some" Christian literature uses the word qeoV with reference to Christ, equating Christ with the Father and therefore NOT in harmony with the Shema of Israel. Not according to Danker, but according to, "the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition."

And of course that is a given, mainline Judaism vehemently rejects the Trinity. But that is not a big selling point, they also reject Jesus as Messiah, and even refer to Him as a "Mamzer", i.e. a bastard, and His mother Mary as a prostitute. The same Jews also say that the best of the gentiles deserves to die and that the issue of, i.e. child born to, a gentile is as that of a beast and an ass. Here is the JE link, click on J or G in the Browse bar at the top, then scroll until you find Jesus or Gentile.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp

You are correct I do not think that the Trinity as defined by mainline Christianity, violates anything, including the Shema. But note I emphasize the mainline Christian definition, not as defined by Judaism and other anti-Trinitarian groups.

Here is the link to my post with three points/questions, which you still have not directly addressed or answered. I will not bother reposting either my points or the BDAG quote, you evidently are not reading either one.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthr...842#post135842

Here is a summary of my points. Answer, don't answer, it is immaterial. Further tap dancing and skirting my posts only serves to prove your inability to make a reasoned response.

1. You have never acknowledged that Danker used the word "Some" in the first sentence of your BDAG quote.
   
2. You have ignored my posts and responded each time as if Danker used the word or implied "all" Christian literature.
   
3. You have failed to acknowledge that Danker very clearly implies that "some" Christian literature uses θεος with reference to Christ equating Christ with the Father.
   
4. You have never addressed how the word "Some' affects the meaning of the sentence.
   
5. You have used the reference to Diognetus, in the third sentence, out-of-context.
   
6. You have failed to acknowledge that the writing cited, i.e. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus" does NOT support but very emphatically contradicts your misuse of the citation.
   
7. You have failed to acknowledge that the same BDAG article clearly lists scripture and ECF writings which use θεος with reference to Christ equating Christ with the Father, thereby contradicting your interpretation of this citation.
   
8. You have failed to acknowledge that the penultimate sentence in the citation very clearly associates θεος in John 1:1b and 1;1a, together using the word "with."
   
9. You have failed to acknowledge that the "problem of attribution' in the last sentence refers to the association of θεος in John 1:1b and 1;1a, in the immediately preceding sentence, not a statement several sentences previous, at the beginning of the paragraph.
   
10. You have failed to recognize that your insistence that Danker means "all" Christian literature uses θεος with reference to Christ without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel, contradicts the last sentence. "On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 (cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6)"
    
11. You have failed to recognize that Danker acknowledges the problem is raised, NOT might be, possibly, would be, etc. Only if Christian literature uses θεος with reference to Christ, equating Christ with the Father, is there a problem of attribution.

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Link to this post in the previous thread, July 3, 2003.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&postcount=54

[Panayioti]

Do you agree with Wolfson that JoD and GoN combined parts of the monotheism of the Jews and the polytheism of the Greeks to form the Trinity?

No. I strongly suggest you deal with Old Shepards arguments because I am in line with his train of thought, as well as his beliefs, and he knows your history must better than I. Suffice it to say, these are old Arian arguemnst that have been dealt with centuries ago, and form no part of Christ's Holy Church. With that I turn this over to Old Shepard.

Peter

[Cal_Minian]

Thanks for your participation. The thread on JoD and GoN was a sideline for me on this forum.

The main point which remains untouched is that BDAG especially in its entry for QEOS supports the NWT rendering of "a god."

I do not make arguments at this time on the specifics of their data, just the conclusions these Lutherans reach.

Best Regards,
Cal

[Panayioti]

Thanks for your participation. The thread on JoD and GoN was a sideline for me on this forum.

The main point which remains untouched is that BDAG especially in its entry for QEOS supports the NWT rendering of "a god."

I do not make arguments at this time on the specifics of their data, just the conclusions these Lutherans reach.

Best Regards,
Cal

Dear Cal:

Thank you for the discussion, but I serously doubt that Lutherans believe that Jesus Christ was "a god", and according to Old Shepard, because I am not familiar with BDAG,you are misquoting BDAG.

May you go in Peace

Peter

[Cal_Minian]

Dear Cal:

Thank you for the discussion, but I serously doubt that Lutherans believe that Jesus Christ was "a god", and according to Old Shepard, because I am not familiar with BDAG,you are misquoting BDAG.

May you go in Peace

Peter

Dear Peter,
You should read the entire entry for BDAG on QEOS when you get a chance. The entry on Christ which includes John 1:1 also includes Romans 9:5.

The link is here and in my signature.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...26&postcount=1

Speaking about whether or not Romans 9:5 refers to Christ or God they conclude he did not because Paul would have violated OT monotheism if he had:

"A special consideration in favor of this interpretation is the status assigned to Christ in 1 Cor 15:25-28 and the probability that Paul is not likely to have violated the injunction in Dt 5:7." (ASV Deuteronomy 5:7 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. citation supplied by Cal_Minian from American Standard Version)

This is word for word. It is not ambiguous.

[greek] carein [/greek]

[Panayioti]

Dear Peter,
You should read the entire entry for BDAG on QEOS when you get a chance. The entry on Christ which includes John 1:1 also includes Romans 9:5.

The link is here and in my signature.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...26&postcount=1

Speaking about whether or not Romans 9:5 refers to Christ or God they conclude he did not because Paul would have violated OT monotheism if he had:


This is word for word. It is not ambiguous.

[greek] carein [/greek]

I have argued and translated Romans 9:5 previously and IT DOES refer to Christ. The entire textual and interpretive history of the Greek Church on this passage clearly affirms that it is a reference to Christ and his divinity. Also, what makes you think the Apostles, as well as St. Paul the Apostle, continued to believe in the unitary nature of God? You are making a big mistake by assuming such a falsity. The reason its a falsity is because the Sacred Apostolic tradition (i.e. teaching) never taught such a thing. It taught the Trinity (i.e. Triune God).

Cal, you can respond, but I do have to go. I do apologize.

Peter

[Cal_Minian]

I have argued and translated Romans 9:5 previously and IT DOES refer to Christ. The entire textual and interpretive history of the Greek Church on this passage clearly affirms that it is a reference to Christ and his divinity. Also, what makes you think the Apostles, as well as St. Paul the Apostle, continued to believe in the unitary nature of God? You are making a big mistake by assuming such a falsity. The reason its a falsity is because the Sacred Apostolic tradition (i.e. teaching) never taught such a thing. It taught the Trinity (i.e. Triune God).

Cal, you can respond, but I do have to go. I do apologize.

Peter

Dear Peter,
I don't intend to limit your choices here. The quotation is word for word from BDAG but I do not intend force you to accept their understanding. The point of these articles of mine has always been to educate Trinitarians that they should not be dogmatic in their view of the NWT renderings.

I assume you now agree that it is BDAG who makes these statements and that I am not misrepresenting them.

I do find your statement interesting

Also, what makes you think the Apostles, as well as St. Paul the Apostle, continued to believe in the unitary nature of God?

It appears to be ad admission that the oldest Christian teaching on the unity of God was the same as JWs teach!

[OldShepherd]

Dear Peter,
You should read the entire entry for BDAG on QEOS when you get a chance. The entry on Christ which includes John 1:1 also includes Romans 9:5.

The link is here and in my signature.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...26&postcount=1

Speaking about whether or not Romans 9:5 refers to Christ or God they conclude he did not because Paul would have violated OT monotheism if he had:

This is word for word. It is not ambiguous.

[greek] carein [/greek]

WRONG! As usual.

In Fred's quote, Danker refers us to John 10:34, Exodus 7:1, and Psalm 81:6 (LXX), without any explanation of the relevance of these texts. We may or may not infer what Fred would like us to - that QEOS in Jn 1:1 is used in the same sense as in these verses; but even if we do, none of these verses is the same grammatical construction as Jn 1:1c, nor are their contexts remotely similar.

Having said that, I don't think Fred views the entry correctly. For example, Danker includes Hebrews 1:8 in both section 2 (QEOS used in reference to Christ) and in section 3 ("God in Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective"). So, even taking Fred's argument at face value, Danker says Christ is called "a god" in a representational sense in Jn 1:1, but says He is called "God" in the sense of the true God of Jewish/Christian monotheism in Heb 1:8.

Perhaps Danker is simply inconsistent. Or perhaps he doesn't actually believe Jn 1:1 should be rendered 'a god.' Or perhaps he wishes to split the difference, and leave both neo-Arian and Trinitarian solutions on the table. Either way, it appears Fred's argument from authority falls well short of the mark.

BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ(without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in
the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. [color=red] On the problem raised by such attribution s. J

Dear Fred:

Above is your rendition of the BDAG quote with the use of standard B-Greek transliteration.

Now let me begin by saying that this Lexicon was originally known and referred to as the “BAG”, which initials stood for Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich”. With the 2nd Edition, Fredrick Danker was added as an editor, and so the Initials changed to “BAGD”, which held for several years. The Editor of this relatively new 3rd Edition is Danker himself, and so the choice has been made to move the initial “D” to 2nd place. Evidently they did not want to usurp Bauer’s recognition as the original Author, thus it is now called the BDAG.

The issue you’ve raised with the above quote is whether the BDAG has presented evidence and/or opinion favorable to JW Theology. It is obvious that you think BDAG has, and so now you’re citing it as such. Therefore my goal will be to answer three questions; first, does Danker’s additional material change anything that had been indicated in the 2nd Edition (BAGD), and second, does the point (with and without the added material) intend to favor one side over the other. And third, I will point to other additions in the same BDAG that would lend support to the Orthodox Theology in the same way you have done.

The first statement in the quote above has the 2nd Edition BAGD saying "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father)...at this point in the parenthesis BDAG (Danker) adds the following information within that parenthesis... “and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below)”.

So let’s consider the first question, “does Danker’s additional material change anything that had been indicated in the 2nd Edition BAGD?” No it does not. Danker merely adds clarification. First note the statement “without necessarily equating Christ with the Father..” Well, that is exactly what the Orthodox view has always said, we don’t “equate” Christ with the Father in reference to identity, but Danker’s additional info simply clarifies what the traditional Jewish conception of who “God” was, as the Jews understood the Shema”. To them “God” (meaning what JWs mean with “Jehovah”... Almighty God...etc) was only the Father. Danker means to clarify what the 2nd Edition meant by bringing in the Jewish understanding of the Shema and Jesus’ meaning of “good” in his response to the one who called him “good master”. At this point BDAG returns to the BAGD quote and continues with, “though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate.” Danker then adds that the people in both the Jewish and Roman traditions applied the designation “theos” to someone they thought was just a minister from God, and he will in a moment supply actual and specific references in support, something BAGD did not do.

However, since Danker has only clarified BAGD’s statement by bringing in the Jewish conception of the Shema and Jesus’ meaning of applying “good” to him in Mark 10:18, as well as providing specific references in other literature to support BAGD’s original statement, nothing Danker adds changes anything as far as making a judgment about the true identity of the Logos. What both editions are saying is that back then it was not unheard of for people to regard another person as “a god” rather than their conception of the Shema...God Almighty. Well for goodness sakes, Fred, that’s no biggie...we’ve always disagreed on that particular point. Jews back then and orthodox Jews today, and others such as JWs still take the applications of “theos” to Jesus along such lines. This is not a brand new revelation! And neither the BAGD nor Danker (BDAG) is making a judgment at this point. Both editions demonstrate that they are not intending to make a judgment (on the ultimate issue) by including the words “Though the interpretation of some of the passages is in debate.” On the other hand, BDAG by including specific references actually helps to demonstrate a point to some detractors in regard to the interpretation of John 1:1.

What is it? Some detractors have attempted to confute the Trinitarians by insisting that “ton theon” in John 1:1b be taken to mean “three Persons” by Trinitarians, and then they attempt a “gotcha” by saying “See, now you end up with four Personages instead of the three you’re arguing for.” Trinitarians have responded in at least one of two ways to this point, either “ton theon” can be taken as a reference to the Father and the HS, since neither “became flesh”, or “ton theon” may be John’s method of introducing the Logos, by bringing in the standard Jewish Shema conception of God as the object of comparison, and BDAG's clarification of this point supports the Trinitarian explanation perfectly!

That is the position I myself hold, that “ton theon” in John 1:1b points only to the Father, not because John himself believed only that at the time of writing, but because he understood the traditional Jewish conception and was simply using it as the standard of comparison...meaning, “now this information about the Logos must be factored into the traditional conception of God, and this will require an up-dated understanding of monotheism” i.e. the progressive revelation that I’m including here. Orthodox Jews today still refuse to take what Orthodox Christians see as John’s intended update to their monotheism, in fact they refuse to accept any additional revelation beyond their OT Scriptures, and deny that the NT writers were inspired at all.

Other detractors, however, who claim to be Christian obviously cannot reject the inspiration of the NT Writers, and so they must explain John’s additional information in some way that would allow them to retain the traditional Jewish conception of Almighty God as only the Father, and find some other explanation for the Logos. But their situation is complicated by the NT’s bringing the Son into the picture. What to do with him has always perplexed people. Some have incorporated the information about him into the traditional “One Person” monotheism and with other harmonized material made the necessary update, and so have eventually concluded that the “ONE GOD” is actually three Persons (Orthodox). Others have concluded only two Persons, Father and Son (either binitarian, or with even some, the Jesus only view). And still others have attempted to account for the extra information without updating their conception of monotheism (JWs and other detractors, as already mentioned). So we can move on in your quote of the BDAG knowing that so far neither the 2nd Edition BAGD nor 3rd BDAG is opining on the ultimate issue, although Danker has clarified and provided specific support to the point made in the 2nd Edition BAGD. Neither side gains so far.

Moving on in your quote of BDAG, after pointing to the specific references in “other lit”, Danker for a moment returns to the BAGD quote and citation of Romans 9:5 as an example of how knowing the originally intended punctuation would be helpful in understanding whether the Author at this point intended to apply the doxology to Christ. Here Danker goes beyond the 2nd Edition by adding his preference for the punctuation that would not have Paul applying this designation to Christ: “A special consideration in favor of this interpretation is the status assigned to Christ in 1 Cor. 15:25-28 and the probability that Paul is not likely to have violated the injunction in Dt 5:7.” On the other hand, we may doubt that Paul was overly concerned with violating Jewish injunctions, as he was already considered “lame duck” in that area anyhow, as shown in Acts 21:21.

On the other hand, only if we believe that the Bible Writers were not inspired by the Holy Spirit could we allow such a consideration to color our decision as to the correct punctuation. To assume what Paul was “likely to do”, and whether or not he would “violate” an OT injunction, is to assume too much and limit God’s ability to use Paul and the other NT writers to add progressive revelation, for we might consider all of them “unlikely” to “violate” anything considered established in tradition. Yet if we believe these writers were inspired and if we believe in progressive revelation, we cannot base our decision on what Paul would be “likely” to do or not do, for such would admittedly be under the control of the Holy Spirit. For example, could we say that because Paul elsewhere calls the Father “our Savior” that he’d be “unlikely”’ to call Jesus “our Savior” too? Anyone who toys with such an idea should review Titus 1:3-4. Paul obviously had no problem identifying first the Father as “our Savior”, then immediately “Jesus Christ” as “our Savior” too. So Paul’s likelihood of applying titles is neither here nor there...in view of progressive revelation, and also that he and the other Bible writers were supervised by the HS.

Further, even some Orthodox Christians agree that the punctuation probably should be such that Paul was applying this doxology in Romans 9:5 to God the Father. So we dare not assume that one’s opinion on this question in Romans 9:5 automatically reveals a person as unorthodox, for Paul doesn’t have to be applying this doxology to Christ in Romans 9:5 anyway, he (and other NT writers) may INTEND to call Jesus God elsewhere, as both BAGD and BDAG go on to show.

Now note that BDAG adds to BAGD’s statement as follows: BAGD says, “If a period is placed before ho wn ktl., the doxology refers to God...then BDAG adds 4 words which show exactly what I explained above, Danker means to clarify the meaning that BAGD had in mind at the beginning of this quote, here’s the 4 words BDAG adds: “As defined in Israel”, then BDAG returns to the original quote in BAGD which continues with a parenthesis revealing those who hold such an opinion that the intended doxology was to God. He makes it clear that some will attempt to state the distinction to be between “Christ and God” as if to suggest that Christ is not truly God. Here BDAG clarifies it against such thinking by showing that what is really meant is a distinction between the Father and Son. Indeed Christ is seemingly distinguished from “God” in some places, and that only makes sense because he has chosen to occupy a unique position, a position neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit occupies. Without actually making this clear, some might get the idea that the Lexicon is meaning to deny Christ’s true Deity by making the distinction between “Christ and God” in the same way unbelievers have assumed it, hence Danker adds the extra four words “As defined in Israel". In the context of Romans 9:5 it would not be out of place for Paul to express such a doxology to God the Father, for his Christianity has neither usurped nor replaced God the Father with Christ. For a detailed treatment of the Romans 9:5 question I would highly recommend Murray Harris' "Jesus as God", pages 143-172.

Now as BDAG prepares to continue with BAGD’s quote, Danker apparently sees that the earlier edition had made a judgment he would like to reword, whereas BAGD had said of the “Socinian scholar”, he “conjectured”, Danker changes it to “The transposition by the Socinian scholar”, apparently because he (Danker) thinks it sounds more neutral or fair. That may be so, and perhaps he’s right, but the meaning doesn’t change because of the different wording, as long as we understand that JSchlichting transposed “ho wn” into "wn ho" suggesting "to whom belongs" instead of “the One who is”. By the way, Murray also characterizes the Socinian scholar's transposition as "conjecture" and reviews a number of "serious difficulties" that have prevented its adoption by commentaries (Jesus as God, page 147). Neither BAGD nor BDAG show any preference at this point, though Danker adds a couple more references to the revival previously mentioned.

Now at this point the BDAG returns again to the quote from the 2nd Edition with, “In 2 Pt 1:1; 1J 5:20 the interpretation is open to question...and now BDAG (Danker) adds something curious, something that was not in the 2nd Ed. BAGD quote: He adds in parenthesis,

"(but cp. Ismyrna McCabe .0010, 100 ho theos kai swtnr Antioxos)"

So what does this addition mean? It means that taking both nouns of Titus 2:13 in Granville Sharp fashion (TSKS construction...see Wallace, pages 270-277) as a reference to Jesus Christ is indeed possible, even in the secular literature of the Koine period. The reason this is curious, though, is because he adds a note of caution in the entry for swtnr (page 985), saying that the kai in Titus 2:13 may suggest a different semantic aspect from what NRSV has in their text, to what they have in the margin. Well, NRSV has "our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" in the text, and in the margin, "or of the Great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.". Interestingly Danker's own reference above would seem to contradict his caution, since it also has kai. Both are valid examples of the TSKS construction, and Sharp himself stated that when the copulative "kai" connects two nouns of the same case, if the article "ho", or any of its cases, appears before the first noun, and not repeated before the second noun, both refer to the same person (Wallace, 271).

I would say that given BDAG's reference above which also contains the copulative kai, that we'd have to consider the NRSV's actual text version as correct in both Titus 2:13 and 2nd Pet. 1:1, and Danker's example above supports that conclusion and undermines the stated basis ("kai") for his own caution on page 985. At any rate, the McCabe reference was actually cited by Danker himself, and translates "The God and Savior, Antiochus"....thus..."our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"

Then BDAG again returns to the 2nd Ed. BAGD quote with, “On the other hand )BAGD)...BDAG reads “In any event, TH. certainly refers to Christ (BDAG adds, “as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity”)...then both proceed... “in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. ho theos 1:1a, which refers to God)...here both BDAG and BAGD have a mistake, J 1:1a does not contain the noun “theos” at all, so both must mean 1:1b which is the ref. But Danker, true to form so far, adds: “in the monotheistic context of Israel’s tradition”. Again, BDAG (Danker) seems more apt to clarify the reference to “theos” in 1:1b as a reference to the Father, and I would applaud that clarification. I’m sure detractors will not like Danker’s clarification since it comes against their insistence that Trinitarians take “ton theon” in 1:1b as a reference to three Persons, thus making four altogether when the Logos is added. No, Danker agrees that John may have had the Jewish Shema tradition in mind in John 1:1b with “ton theon”...and therefore there would be no need to end up with 4 Persons. Also, we would expect no less from an equal member of the Godhead, if one were to condescend to become one of us and be our “Kinsman Redeemer”, that such a one would indeed at least manifest himself as one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God. In fact he did much more than that, he even acknowledged that while still a man on earth he deserved to be honored and valued just as we would honor and value God the Father (John 5:22-23), recall John's having just said that by calling God his own Father, he was making himself equal with God (Jn 5:18).

So Danker’s clarifications actually aid the Orthodox explanation of John 1:1! BDAG then adds “on the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 {cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6}: s. beg of this entry. As said above, I applaud his clarification of "ton theon" in John 1:1b, and welcome the comparison because a low Christological view will not make muster when making the comparison. But if you thought BDAG was intending to support the JW theology, how would you explain not only the further references where "theos" was clearly applied to Jesus in the NT, but also the reference to Ignatius' calling Christ "theos" in many passages. Reads like this: "But above all Ignatius calls Christ theos in many pass."

Yet I have no idea what Danker’s theology is, and I’m not in any way disagreeing with Sola’s discovery that he is far from Orthodox in his personal views. I’m merely saying that his decision to emphasize these passages when interpreting John 1:1 is fine with me, as it should be with all. Yet if Danker saw no need to harmonize the Scripture, perhaps Sola should have asked him what he was trying to do by citing these passages when considering John 1:1. It sure looks like he’s advocating some kind of harmonization, doesn’t it? Yet such harmonization would not be detrimental at all to the Orthodox view, therefore it cannot be taken as suggestive that he intends to favor one view over another. On the other hand, perhaps Danker was trying to be fair by acknowledging both sides of the argument, and I have no problem with that at all...for I remind you again where he above also added a koine’ reference that supports the Orthodox interpretation of Titus 2:13 and 2nd Pet. 2:1 in agreement with Granville Sharp’s rule, Jesus is our Great God and Savior. Makes sense to me, like in Jude 4 where Jesus is said to be our “only Owner and Lord”, even in the NWT, and with Greg Stafford’s blessing, no friends of the Trinity are they. Passages like these have tended to cause the detractors fits, and why should that surprise anyone?

This is the point where you broke off the quote from BDAG, Fred, but in addition to BDAG’s adding the reference above that supports the Orthodox understanding of passages like Titus 2:13 and 2nd Peter 1:1 (Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ), despite his inconsistent caution, note that Danker continues with the following clear references to the title “theos” being applied to the Son, both with and without the article.

18b. ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou..my Lord and my God! (nom. w. art.=voc; s. beg. of this entry.–On a resurrection as proof of divinity cp. Diog. L. 8, 41, who quotes Hermippus: Pythagoras returns from a journey to Hades and appears among his followers {eiserchesthai eis tnv ekklnsian}, and they consider him theion tina) J 20:28 (on the combination of kurios and theos s. 3c below.) Tit 2:13 (megas th.). Hb 1:8, 9 (in a quot. fr Ps 44:7, 8). S. Tglasson, NTS 12, ‘66, 270-272. Jd 5 P72. But above all Ignatius call Christ theos in many pass. theos Insous Christos 1Tr 7:1; Christos theos 1Sm 10:1. ho theos hemwn Ieph ins: 15:3; 18:2; Iro ins (twice); Ieph 1:1. hen sarki yenomenos theos 7:2. theos anthrwpinws Phaneroumenos 19:3. Theos ho houtws humas sophisas Ism 1:1.–Hdb.exc 193f; Mrackl, DieChristologie d.hl. Ign. v. Ant. 1914. ho theos mou christe’ Insou AcPl Ha 3, 10; Christos Insous ho theos 6, 24; cp In 34 (also cp. Just., A I, 63, 15, D. 63, 5 al.; Tat. 13, 3; Ath. 24, 1; Mel., P. 4, 28 al.). –Slosch, Deitas Jesu u. antike Apotheose ‘33. Cp. Awlosk, Romischer Kaiserkult ‘78.”

Now, in view of BDAG's further additions that naturally support the Orthodox position, both with the TSKS construction (Titus 2:13 and 2nd Peter 1:1), as well citing other passages where Jesus is clearly called "theos" even in the definite sense (John 20:28), I think it reads too much into Danker's additions to assume that these additions intend to favor one position over the other. As I said, I don't know Danker's personal theology, but I see no need to take these additions as in any way damaging to the Orthodox view, or even favorable to the WT's theology, and if you do wish to continue making such a claim, you'll need to explain the other additions as well, additions that obviously would not be helpful to your view.

[Panayioti]

Dear Peter,
I don't intend to limit your choices here. The quotation is word for word from BDAG but I do not intend force you to accept their understanding. The point of these articles of mine has always been to educate Trinitarians that they should not be dogmatic in their view of the NWT renderings.

I assume you now agree that it is BDAG who makes these statements and that I am not misrepresenting them.

I do find your statement interesting

It appears to be ad admission that the oldest Christian teaching on the unity of God was the same as JWs teach!

Cal I have the entire corpus of Orthodox Teaching and writings of the Fathers that support my belief in the blessed Trinity. Further, The Apostles were NOT believers in a unitary God. The Trinity is and always has been a Christian belief. Period. Old Shep - Great Post.

Peter

[OldShepherd]

I have argued and translated Romans 9:5 previously and IT DOES refer to Christ. The entire textual and interpretive history of the Greek Church on this passage clearly affirms that it is a reference to Christ and his divinity. Also, what makes you think the Apostles, as well as St. Paul the Apostle, continued to believe in the unitary nature of God? You are making a big mistake by assuming such a falsity. The reason its a falsity is because the Sacred Apostolic tradition (i.e. teaching) never taught such a thing. It taught the Trinity (i.e. Triune God).

Cal, you can respond, but I do have to go. I do apologize.

Peter

Roman 9:5, as interpreted by early church fathers.

Tertullian Against Praxeas [145-220 AD]

Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge150 which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr's sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord."151 But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever."152 For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms153 of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf0...P10554_2961035


Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments [170-236 AD]

6. Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."216 This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father."217 He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."218 And well has he named Christ the Almighty.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf0...#P3712_1172813


A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [210-280 AD]

And, nevertheless, while the world itself is said to have been founded after Him, it is found to have been created by Him; by that very divinity in Him whereby, the world was made, both His glory and His authority are proved. Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God. Therefore, in this respect, one of two things must needs be established. For since it is evident that all things were made by Christ, He is either before all things, since all things were by Him, and so He is justly God; or because He is man He is subsequent to all things, and justly nothing was made by Him. But we cannot say that nothing was made by Him, when we observe it written that all things were made by Him. He is not therefore subsequent to all things; that is, He is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since God is prior to all things. For He is before all things, because all things are by Him, while if He were only man, nothing would be by Him; or if all things were by Him, He would not be man only, because if He were only man, all things would not be by Him; nay, nothing would be by Him. What, then, do they reply? That nothing is by Him, so that He is man only? How then are all things by Him? Therefore He is not man only, but God also, since all things are by Him; so that we reasonably ought to understand that Christ is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since by Him all things were made.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf0...P10207_3183526

[Panayioti]

Roman 9:5, as interpreted by early church fathers.

Tertullian Against Praxeas [145-220 AD]

Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge150 which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr's sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord."151 But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever."152 For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms153 of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf0...P10554_2961035


Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments [170-236 AD]

6. Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."216 This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father."217 He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."218 And well has he named Christ the Almighty.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf0...#P3712_1172813


A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [210-280 AD]

And, nevertheless, while the world itself is said to have been founded after Him, it is found to have been created by Him; by that very divinity in Him whereby, the world was made, both His glory and His authority are proved. Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God. Therefore, in this respect, one of two things must needs be established. For since it is evident that all things were made by Christ, He is either before all things, since all things were by Him, and so He is justly God; or because He is man He is subsequent to all things, and justly nothing was made by Him. But we cannot say that nothing was made by Him, when we observe it written that all things were made by Him. He is not therefore subsequent to all things; that is, He is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since God is prior to all things. For He is before all things, because all things are by Him, while if He were only man, nothing would be by Him; or if all things were by Him, He would not be man only, because if He were only man, all things would not be by Him; nay, nothing would be by Him. What, then, do they reply? That nothing is by Him, so that He is man only? How then are all things by Him? Therefore He is not man only, but God also, since all things are by Him; so that we reasonably ought to understand that Christ is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since by Him all things were made.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf0...P10207_3183526

WOW!That was an excellent post. I nominate this post as thee best post in this series topic. Way to go Old Shep.

Peter

[Cal_Minian]

WOW!That was an excellent post. I nominate this post as thee best post in this series topic. Way to go Old Shep.

Peter

Dear Panayioti,
My articles on BDAG are presented to show that this Greek lexicon supports the NWT rendering of a number of trinitarian proof-texts. It is published in cooperation with the conservative Lutheran Missouri Synod. I therefore quote them as a hostile witness.

Therefore if anyone wants to dogmatically prove the NWT renderings are wrong they have the burden of proof. A Trinitarian merely quoting some Trinitarian Fathers is like me quoting the Watchtower. Big deal.

That being said, the books you recommended on Church history make it clear that the doctrine of those Fathers was not yet the same as is taught today.

My also quoting the Fathers as hostile witnesses makes more sense than a modern Trinitarian quoting them, unless they are willing to accept all that they teach.

For example, the early Fathers such as Justin Martyr and others believed that the Son existed in the Father as his Word but not as a person. G.P. Fischer who I quote here ---> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...1&postcount=26 shows this to be true.

However modern Trinitarians do not teach this.