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

[Panayioti]

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.

Dear Cal:

I find it very interesting that your arguement is a "one-note" arguement. You are been corrected on numerous occasion I cannot begin to go through it again. I also find it interesting that you will not respond to Old Shepard's arguements. He has disected and refuted your misquoting of BDAG and the Church Fathers. If you have a "SURE" belief then respond to the posts by Old Shepard.

Take care.

Peter

[Cal_Minian]

Dear Cal:

... your misquoting of BDAG ...
Take care.

Peter

Dear Peter,
As I have mentioned before, I am quoting BDAG to show that this Trinitarian lexicon supports many of the renderings in the NWT, even those traditionally used as Trinitarian proof-texts.

Since I have quoted them word for word, I am not misquoting them at all. Would you mind showing me where I do not quote BDAG accurately?

Might I remind you that if someone does not agree with what BDAG has published that this is not the same as my misquoting it?

There also seems to be a misconception that I am attempting to defend the details of the BDAG articles. That is not the case. I leave that up to Danker. If anyone has issues with what they have published they are the ones who needs to defend themselves.

However, if I have not been accurate in what I have reported from their articles then I am interested in being corrected on that.

As for the Church Fathers, I have not started a thread here on the Fathers. This forum is for discussing the original languages, is it not? Any comments on the Fathers is peripheral at best.

Cheers

[OldShepherd]

Dear Peter,
As I have mentioned before, I am quoting BDAG to show that this Trinitarian lexicon supports many of the renderings in the NWT, even those traditionally used as Trinitarian proof-texts.

Since I have quoted them word for word, I am not misquoting them at all. Would you mind showing me where I do not quote BDAG accurately?

Might I remind you that if someone does not agree with what BDAG has published that this is not the same as my misquoting it?

There also seems to be a misconception that I am attempting to defend the details of the BDAG articles. That is not the case. I leave that up to Danker. If anyone has issues with what they have published they are the ones who needs to defend themselves.

However, if I have not been accurate in what I have reported from their articles then I am interested in being corrected on that.

As for the Church Fathers, I have not started a thread here on the Fathers. This forum is for discussing the original languages, is it not? Any comments on the Fathers is peripheral at best.

Cheers

Whether, or not, you have started a thread, you are quoting, at least, one church father, Mathetes, out-of-context. Mathetes is the writer of "Diog(netus)" you keep quoting out-of-context, misrepresenting and misusing. This has been pointed out to you several times over, a more than, three year period, and you stick your head in the mud and refuse to even acknowledge most of the evidence presented.

How have you not been accurate? Ooooh let me count the ways. First you keep attributing your quote to Diognetus. Diognetus did not write the work cited, Mathetes wrote it to Diognetus. Had you done your homework you would know this.

Second, your claim is that BDAG supports the JW interpretation "a god" in John 1:1. The "Diog." quote cited does not even mention John 1:1, or logos. Further as I have proven several times, the complete BDAG θεος article, from which you selectively quoted, very emphatically does not support you assertion.

Third, as I proved in the other, 3 year old, thread. Mathetes writing to Diognetus very definitely does not support your assertion.

There is no disagreement with Danker, when BDAG is read in-context. The argument is and has always been you, quoting BDAG, inter alia, out-of-context.

You claim to have given the BDAG quotes word for word? Here is a quote from scripture, quoted word for word. "There is no god.," from Psalm 14:1, and 53:1. Does the Bible literally say there is no god? Absolutely not! Here are the quotes, in-context.

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Anybody can make the Bible, or any other writing, say almost anything they want it to, by selectively quoting pieces here and there and ignoring anything and everythig that contradicts their assumptions and presuppositions, exactly as you are doing.

Your assertion that BDAG, "supports many of the renderings in the NWT, even those traditionally used as Trinitarian proof-texts" is totally and absolutely false. You dishonestly try to make your arguments by selectively quoting bits and pieces out-of-context, and ignore everything that proves you wrong.

[Cal_Minian]

Pseudo-OS!

OS Debunked... see my .sig

[OldShepherd]

Pseudo-OS!

OS Debunked... see my .sig

Well Gee whiz then it must be true because it says so right there. That's all any WTBS mind controlled Watchtower slave has to do is make an assertion and Zip! Pop! Wham! Shazam! It's automatically true. NOT!

[Cal_Minian]

Calm down, OS, you will blow a gasget!

[OldShepherd]

Calm down, OS, you will blow a gasget!

Is this a tacit acknowledgement that you are a liar? You claimed you had me on ignore for three years so you could avoid my posts.

OBTW you debunked diddly squat. You deliberately misquoted me, and made an asinine attempt to tell me what I meant when I wrote something. It is one thing to misquote a q source and try to twist what they say to your advantage but it is idiotic to misquote someone to their face and try to twist their words. I know what I said and what I meant. I don't need a Watchtower slave to explain me to me. Remember this? You claimed that I said Danker supported the NWTrash by saying "split the difference" Here is what I actually said,

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.

Three possibilites, NOT statements of fact, and you chose the one most favorable to your position, and misquoted it. You omitted, "Perhaps he wishes" and then of course later I point out how Danker goes on to clarify this point and soundly refute your argument. DEBUNKED!

[Cal_Minian]

TWEB is so complicated.... I still can't read your posts.

[OldShepherd]

TWEB is so complicated.... I still can't read your posts.

Then trip on down to the Kingdom Hall, unBiblical name, and ask one of the Superintendents, another unBiblical name, who can read and comprehend above a 3d grade level to read and explain it to you.

[Cal_Minian]

OldShepherd:
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.

Cal:
It is not true that there is no explanation of the relevance. He states explicitly:

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 1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel’s tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6];

How could it raise a problem to call Jesus QEOS and how does Exodus 7:1 solve it? If one looks at Exodus 7:1

"And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Behold, I have made thee a god (QEON) to Pharao (LXE)"

one can see that there is a parallel to this text and the one Danker gives earlier from the 2nd century Diognetus with:

Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be (QEOS) a god to the recipients

Now, what is the problem? Well Danker also supplies "NRS Mark 10:18 Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" compared to the SHEMA in Dt 6:4 and also says of Romans 9:5 "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.—If a comma is used in the same place, the reference is to Christ "

The problem to Which Danker refers is the violation of the SHEMA. However it is resolved by noting that elohim/QEOS was used of men like Moses as well. As for the grammatical similarity, in both instances QEOS is anarthrous.


OldShepherd:
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.

Cal:
Not necessarily. There is more than one way to view Hebrews 1:8. Since this was also used to describe a Hebrew king it would mean that Christ was QEOS like the Hebrew king was elohim. Another person might view Hebrews 1:8 as entirely Messianic. The former view fits section 2 and since Danker does not say otherwise there is no contradiction.

[John Reece]

The thread title is erroneous, all the argumentation asserting that not withstanding the fact: BDAG does not support rendering John 1:1/ as "a god".

Presenting a rather lengthy compilation of quotes and comments covering the entire range of interpretations does not = 'BDAG supports rendering John 1:1. as "a god".' To assert that it does is to misconstrue the voluminous collection of information in the BDAG entry for [greek]qeoV[/greek], by selectively quoting to play up portions of the entry and failing to note and to give due emphasis to other portions of the entry, such as:

Some writings in our literature use the word [greek]qeoV[/greek] with reference 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 passage is in debate. [...] In any event, [greek]qeoV[/greek] certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the following NT passages: J 1:1b. (with [greek]o qeoV[/greek] 1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution see J 10:34. [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6] [...]), 18b. [greek]o kurioV kai o qeoV mou[/greek] my Lord and my God! [...] But above all Ignatius calls Christ [greek]qeoV[/greek] in many passages: [greek]qeoV IhsouV CristoV[/greek] 1Tr 7:1; [greek]CristoV qeoV[/greek] 1Sm 10:1; [greek]o qeoV hmwn[/greek] 1Eph ins.; 15:3; 18:2; 1Ro ins (twice); 3:3; 1Pol 8:3; [greek]to paqoV tou qeou mou[/greek] 1Ro 6:3. [greek]en aimati qeou[/greek] 1Eph 1:1. [greek]en sarki genomenoV qeoV[/greek] 7:1. [greek]qeoV anqrwpinoV faneroumenoV[/greek] 19:3. [greek]qeoV o outwV umaV sofisaV[/greek] 1Sm 1:1. [...]

When BDAG references "the problem raised by such attribution", he does not say that the problem is resolved in favor of Christ being merely "a god".

[Cal_Minian]

The thread title is erroneous, all the argumentation asserting that not withstanding the fact: BDAG does not support rendering John 1:1/ as "a god".

Presenting a rather lengthy compilation of quotes and comments covering the entire range of interpretations does not = 'BDAG supports rendering John 1:1. as "a god".' To assert that it does is to misconstrue the voluminous collection of information in the BDAG entry for [greek]qeoV[/greek], by selectively quoting to play up portions of the entry and failing to note and to give due emphasis to other portions of the entry, such as:

Some writings in our literature use the word [greek]qeoV[/greek] with reference 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 passage is in debate. [...] In any event, [greek]qeoV[/greek] certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the following NT passages: J 1:1b. (with [greek]o qeoV[/greek] 1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution see J 10:34. [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6] [...]), 18b. [greek]o kurioV kai o qeoV mou[/greek] my Lord and my God! [...] But above all Ignatius calls Christ [greek]qeoV[/greek] in many passages: [greek]qeoV IhsouV CristoV[/greek] 1Tr 7:1; [greek]CristoV qeoV[/greek] 1Sm 10:1; [greek]o qeoV hmwn[/greek] 1Eph ins.; 15:3; 18:2; 1Ro ins (twice); 3:3; 1Pol 8:3; [greek]to paqoV tou qeou mou[/greek] 1Ro 6:3. [greek]en aimati qeou[/greek] 1Eph 1:1. [greek]en sarki genomenoV qeoV[/greek] 7:1. [greek]qeoV anqrwpinoV faneroumenoV[/greek] 19:3. [greek]qeoV o outwV umaV sofisaV[/greek] 1Sm 1:1. [...]

When BDAG references "the problem raised by such attribution", he does not say that the problem is resolved in favor of Christ being merely "a god".

BDAG does say to compare Ex 7:1 to resolve this. It says:

LXE Exodus 7:1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Behold, I have made thee a god to Pharao, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

They also quote Diognetus and render that text "a god" as well. You cut out this part of section 2 where they compare Christ to "a god" in this 2nd century Christian work. Since this section is about how Christ is called [greek] qeoV [/quote] this is very significant.

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 w. 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: [greek] oV a para tou qeou labwn ecei, tauta toiV evpideomenoiV corhgwn, qeoV ginetai twn lambanantwn [/greek] one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients

-Cal

[John Reece]

BDAG does say to compare Ex 7:1. to resolve this.

BDAG does not say that Ex 7:1. resolves John 1:1. as a reference to "a god", and Ex 7:1. is not a reference to Christ.

They also quote Diognetus and render that text "a god" as well.

The Letter of Diognetus is not about Christ or John 1:1.

You cut out this part of section 2 where they compare Christ to "a god" in this 2nd century Christian work. Since this section is about how Christ is called [greek] qeoV [/greek] this is very significant.

BDAG does not use that fact to draw a conclusion in support of rendering John 1:1. as "a god". Far from it.

BDAG does not take the snippets you cherry-picked — from approximately 90 lines of small print tightly abbreviated citations of articles and texts — and construe them to support rendering John 1:1. as "a god".

Rather, BDAG presents the entire range of perspectives represented in the texts of scripture and history and presents a preponderance of evidence against rendering John 1:1. as "a god". Here are two excerpts from the concluding section:

• 18b. [greek]o kurioV kai o qeoV mou[/greek] my Lord and my God!

• But above all Ignatius calls Christ [greek]qeoV[/greek] in many passages: [greek]qeoV IhsouV CristoV[/greek] 1Tr 7:1; [greek]CristoV qeoV[/greek] 1Sm 10:1; [greek]o qeoV hmwn[/greek] 1Eph ins.; 15:3; 18:2; 1Ro ins (twice); 3:3; 1Pol 8:3; [greek]to paqoV tou qeou mou[/greek] 1Ro 6:3. [greek]en aimati qeou[/greek] 1Eph 1:1. [greek]en sarki genomenoV qeoV[/greek] 7:1. [greek]qeoV anqrwpinoV faneroumenoV[/greek] 19:3. [greek]qeoV o outwV umaV sofisaV[/greek] 1Sm 1:1.

[Cal_Minian]

BDAG does not say that Ex 7:1. resolves John 1:1. as a reference to "a god", and Ex 7:1. is not a reference to Christ.

The Letter of Diognetus is not about Christ or John 1:1.

BDAG does not use that fact to draw a conclusion in support of rendering John 1:1. as "a god". Far from it.

BDAG does not take the snippets you cherry-picked — from approximately 90 lines of small print tightly abbreviated citations of articles and texts — and construe them to support rendering John 1:1. as "a god".

Rather, BDAG presents the entire range of perspectives represented in the texts of scripture and history and presents a preponderance of evidence against rendering John 1:1. as "a god". Here are two excerpts from the concluding section:

• 18b. [greek]o kurioV kai o qeoV mou[/greek] my Lord and my God!

• But above all Ignatius calls Christ [greek]qeoV[/greek] in many passages: [greek]qeoV IhsouV CristoV[/greek] 1Tr 7:1; [greek]CristoV qeoV[/greek] 1Sm 10:1; [greek]o qeoV hmwn[/greek] 1Eph ins.; 15:3; 18:2; 1Ro ins (twice); 3:3; 1Pol 8:3; [greek]to paqoV tou qeou mou[/greek] 1Ro 6:3. [greek]en aimati qeou[/greek] 1Eph 1:1. [greek]en sarki genomenoV qeoV[/greek] 7:1. [greek]qeoV anqrwpinoV faneroumenoV[/greek] 19:3. [greek]qeoV o outwV umaV sofisaV[/greek] 1Sm 1:1.

It is easy to dig in your heals until you hear just the perfect words that suit you. What is apparent is that you have not attempted to explain why BDAG says calling Christ QEOS is a problem and how Ex 7:1 resolves this. Until you do this, your protestations are meaningless.

You say that Diognetus is not about Christ and that is correct. However in the context of section 2 in BDAG for QEOS it is directly applied to how Christ is called QEOS by their own words. If you disagree then please inform us why the quotation of someone who is a Savior of God and called "a god" is to be applied to how someone can be called QEOS without violating the SHEMA.

Later one BDAG indicates that Paul would not have violated the SHEMA by called Jesus QEOS in Romans 9:5.

There is no doubt that this entry in BDAG is a thorny issue for Evangelicals.

[John Reece]

What is apparent is that you have not attempted to explain why BDAG says calling Christ QEOS is a problem and how Ex 7:1 resolves this.

BDAG does not say that Ex 7:1. resolves anything.