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

[Cal_Minian]

Addressed in toto. two years ago Here! You ignored it and bugged out for 2 years.

Addressed in toto. five years ago Here! You ignored it and bugged out for 3 years.

Then of course Ray cleaned your clock on this argument before that, in early May 2003, but I can't find the link. If you like I can repost his entire argument and your feeble attempts to reply.

I just responded recently after having been away from TWEB for a while. Please address what Danker says about Romans 9:5 which he uses to build up to his comment on John 1:1.

[OldShepherd]

I just responded recently after having been away from TWEB for a while. Please address what Danker says about Romans 9:5 which he uses to build up to his comment on John 1:1.

Yeah right, "away for a while." 3 years the 1st time and 2 years the 2d.

Bintheredunthgatgotthetshirtdontfit. See either one of my previous posts which you have NOT addressed, before or now, see links above. Repeating your previous argument is not addressing my posts. But just to help you.

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 9:5as 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. 15:25-28and 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 9:5to God the Father. So we dare not assume that one’s opinion on this question in Romans 9:5automatically reveals a person as unorthodox, for Paul doesn’t have to be applying this doxology to Christ in Romans 9:5anyway, 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 9:5it 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 9:5question I would highly recommend Murray Harris' "Jesus as God", pages 143-172.

[Cal_Minian]

Yeah right, "away for a while." 3 years the 1st time and 2 years the 2d.

Bintheredunthgatgotthetshirtdontfit. See either one of my previous posts which you have NOT addressed, before or now, see links above. Repeating your previous argument is not addressing my posts. But just to help you.

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 9:5as 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. 15:25-28and 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 9:5to God the Father. So we dare not assume that one’s opinion on this question in Romans 9:5automatically reveals a person as unorthodox, for Paul doesn’t have to be applying this doxology to Christ in Romans 9:5anyway, 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 9:5it 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 9:5question I would highly recommend Murray Harris' "Jesus as God", pages 143-172.

OS, you have made the position that I do not have Danker (ie Danker does not support my Christology) and when I supply proof of an example in this same section on how Christ is QEOS without violating the SHEMA you suddenty start arguing against Danker's position. May I also remind you that I quote Danker as a hostile witness. BDAG is financed by the Lutheran Missouri Synod. I do not expect every detail of the entry to conform to me view, even though there are very few parts of this particular entry that do not conform to my view.

[OldShepherd]

OS, you have made the position that I do not have Danker (ie Danker does not support my Christology) and when I supply proof of an example in this same section on how Christ is QEOS without violating the SHEMA you suddenty start arguing against Danker's position. May I also remind you that I quote Danker as a hostile witness. BDAG is financed by the Lutheran Missouri Synod. I do not expect every detail of the entry to conform to me view, even though there are very few parts of this particular entry that do not conform to my view.

I will accept this same old, lame old regurgitation of your previous posts, as an admission that you are totally unable to read, comprehend, and/or respond to my posts, or the posts of the others, all which have demolished your entire twisted, misquoted, misrepresented argument from BAGD.

[Cal_Minian]

I will accept this same old, lame old regurgitation of your previous posts, as an admission that you are totally unable to read, comprehend, and/or respond to my posts, or the posts of the others, all which have demolished your entire twisted, misquoted, misrepresented argument from BAGD.

Then you admit that there are many elements of BDAG on QEOS in section 2 which is QEOS with reference to Christ to which you do not agree. Fine. You see BDAG is financed by the Lutheran Missouri Synod and is not a JW lexicon. I therefore quote it as a hostile witness.

That being said, even your few examples like the Hebrews 1:8 originally brought up by Rob Bowman don't prove your point. That is because even this verse is not taken by Danker as an example of QEOS which violates the SHEMA. After all, even the Israelite King in Ps 45:6-7 was called elohim in the same context.

Again you cannot make a cogent argument that BDAG does not support my Christology and at the same time argue against much of what Danker says on the subject. In doing this you are arguing against yourself.

[OldShepherd]

Then you admit that there are many elements of BDAG on QEOS in section 2 which is QEOS with reference to Christ to which you do not agree. Fine. You see BDAG is financed by the Lutheran Missouri Synod and is not a JW lexicon. I therefore quote it as a hostile witness.

That being said, even your few examples like the Hebrews 1:8 originally brought up by Rob Bowman don't prove your point. That is because even this verse is not taken by Danker as an example of QEOS which violates the SHEMA. After all, even the Israelite King in Ps 45:6-7 was called elohim in the same context.

Again you cannot make a cogent argument that BDAG does not support my Christology and at the same time argue against much of what Danker says on the subject. In doing this you are arguing against yourself.

Here is my post in its entirety.

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.

[Cal_Minian]

As I posted earlier, BDAG makes their case for the statement prior to John 1:1 starting with the beginning of the entry and including the comments on Romans 9:5 that Paul would not violate the SHEMA. The perceived problem with calling the Word God in John 1:1 to which Ex 7:1 is applied is part of the argument.

[OldShepherd]

As I posted earlier, BDAG makes their case for the statement prior to John 1:1 starting with the beginning of the entry and including the comments on Romans 9:5 that Paul would not violate the SHEMA. The perceived problem with calling the Word God in John 1:1 to which Ex 7:1 is applied is part of the argument.

Parroting the same old, lame old, "Did too! Did not! Nuh uh! Nuh huh!" does not address my reply which fully addresses the entire BDAG entry and your objections.

Here are links to my responses to the same arguments from 5 years ago, which you also never replied to.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&postcount=29

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...21#post1518715

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

[Cal_Minian]

Parroting the same old, lame old, "Did too! Did not! Nuh uh! Nuh huh!" does not address my reply which fully addresses the entire BDAG entry and your objections.

Here are links to my responses to the same arguments from 5 years ago, which you also never replied to.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&postcount=29

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...21#post1518715

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

OS,
I am also repeating what I have recently posted to your inconsistent stand on BDAG which attempts to walk a tightrope by denying that BDAG supports my theology in any way while at the same time attacking what Danker wrote (which does support JW theology).

However the difference is that I have distilled my challenge to you into a few short paragraphs which are intended to focus and enlighten the disagreement instead of hiding behinds mounds of irrelevant old posts. In addition because of your responses I have refined my argument.

Why not answer my refined challenge to you that what BDAG says prior to John 1:1 is part of the argument which starts at the beginning of entry #2? This includes the section on Romans 9:5 which you obviously do not agree with. Danker denies that Romans 9:5 calls Jesus God because it would violate the SHEMA and for the same reason says to compare verses like and including Ex 7:1 to understand John 1:1 in the same light.

None of your links addresses this simple challenge to your failing position. Here is the reason:

I have accepted the challenges handed to me by Trinitarians like you and Bowman, have learned from these engagements and refined my arguments. I have to thank you and those like you who have helped me understand the nuances of the BDAG article.

Therefore your old links and the old arguments miss the mark.

[OldShepherd]

OS,
I am also repeating what I have recently posted to your inconsistent stand on BDAG which attempts to walk a tightrope by denying that BDAG supports my theology in any way while at the same time attacking what Danker wrote (which does support JW theology).

However the difference is that I have distilled my challenge to you into a few short paragraphs which are intended to focus and enlighten the disagreement instead of hiding behinds mounds of irrelevant old posts. In addition because of your responses I have refined my argument.

Why not answer my refined challenge to you that what BDAG says prior to John 1:1 is part of the argument which starts at the beginning of entry #2? This includes the section on Romans 9:5 which you obviously do not agree with. Danker denies that Romans 9:5 calls Jesus God because it would violate the SHEMA and for the same reason says to compare verses like and including Ex 7:1 to understand John 1:1 in the same light.

None of your links addresses this simple challenge to your failing position. Here is the reason:

I have accepted the challenges handed to me by Trinitarians like you and Bowman, have learned from these engagements and refined my arguments. I have to thank you and those like you who have helped me understand the nuances of the BDAG article.

Therefore your old links and the old arguments miss the mark.

You have not refined anything just parroting the same old, lame over and over and over. Do NOT keep repeating the same thing, it is absolutely meaningless. There were 3 questions in one post at the link from 5 + years ago and a few posts later on 11 questions. You have NEVER responded to any of my points or questions, you just keep blindly repeating "I'm right and you are wrong. Since you refuse to actually read my posts and reply to them, do not insist I answer your same old meaningless argument from 5+ years ago refuted by several posted here 5 and 2 years ago, and several other people on other forums.

Once again for the sightless slave of the watchtower. My post from 2 years ago, repeated a few days ago, this same thread, addresses the entire BDAG article, total 100%, you posted, and addresses every one of your objections, line by line and point by point." Since you are convinced it does not, since I addressed the entire article, find the point were I addressed the part you are talking about and show me how it does not refute your argument.

When I disagree with any scholar I always explain how and why. The fact that I may disagree with one point, ,with a thorough explanation, does not mean I cannot cite other points.

[Cal_Minian]

You have not refined anything just parroting the same old, lame over and over and over. Do NOT keep repeating the same thing, it is absolutely meaningless. There were 3 questions in one post at the link from 5 + years ago and a few posts later on 11 questions. You have NEVER responded to any of my points or questions, you just keep blindly repeating "I'm right and you are wrong. Since you refuse to actually read my posts and reply to them, do not insist I answer your same old meaningless argument from 5+ years ago refuted by several posted here 5 and 2 years ago, and several other people on other forums.

Once again for the sightless slave of the watchtower. My post from 2 years ago, repeated a few days ago, this same thread, addresses the entire BDAG article, total 100%, you posted, and addresses every one of your objections, line by line and point by point." Since you are convinced it does not, since I addressed the entire article, find the point were I addressed the part you are talking about and show me how it does not refute your argument.

When I disagree with any scholar I always explain how and why. The fact that I may disagree with one point, ,with a thorough explanation, does not mean I cannot cite other points.

You have not yet addressed my response to your assertion that the short statement that is given prior to John 1:1 is the last in a series of statements that makes up an overall argument or theme of the entry as to QEOS when used of Christ.

As for your criticism of how BDAG exegetes the text, that is not my concern. My point is that most of the section 2 regarding QEOS when used of Christ complements JW theology and the parts that do not are open to interpretation. For example the one lone example of Hebrews 1:8 in the context of section 2 is that of the QEOS/elohim king as in the parallel of Ps 45:6-7.

[OldShepherd]

[size=-1]You have not yet addressed my response to your assertion that the short statement that is given prior to John 1:1 is the last in a series of statements that makes up an overall argument or theme of the entry as to QEOS when used of Christ.

As for your criticism of how BDAG exegetes the text, that is not my concern. My point is that most of the section 2 regarding QEOS when used of Christ complements JW theology [Absolute garbage!] [size=-1]and the parts that do not are open to interpretation. [Fred doing what he accused me of!] For example the one lone example of Hebrews 1:8 in the context of section 2 is that of the QEOS/elohim king as in the parallel of Ps 45:6-7 [No it is NOT!]

As I have repeatedly said, I have addressed the entire BDAG quote you posted and ALL, your objections line by line, point by point, both here 2 years ago and in another thread 5+ years go and you have NEVER replied to any of my 20+ questions/points, now you crawl back after 2 years, with part of the same argument, demanding that I answer one question.

As for my so-called criticism of how Danker exegetes the text, you have done the very same thing repeatedly only you don't use lexical or grammatical arguments but arguments from your own bankrupt theology, see second comment above. It is entirely proper to question/critique scholarship when an argument is based on it, as yours is. If the exegesis is wrong, then your argument is wrong.

A link to a similar rebuttal, about 5 pages, of the same argument by Rob Bowman posted at For An Answer. And if you repeat the same meaningless, already refuted, argument again I will post the rebuttal by Ray Goldsmith.

I have found you posting this same argument at several boards using different names, Georg, G, and probably Dan Parker at B-Greek.

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Sc...20NWT.htm#BDAG

[Cal_Minian]

As I have repeatedly said, I have addressed the entire BDAG quote you posted and ALL, your objections line by line, point by point, both here 2 years ago and in another thread 5+ years go and you have NEVER replied to any of my 20+ questions/points, now you crawl back after 2 years, with part of the same argument, demanding that I answer one question.

As for my so-called criticism of how Danker exegetes the text, you have done the very same thing repeatedly only you don't use lexical or grammatical arguments but arguments from your own bankrupt theology, see second comment above. It is entirely proper to question/critique scholarship when an argument is based on it, as yours is. If the exegesis is wrong, then your argument is wrong.

A link to a similar rebuttal, about 5 pages, of the same argument by Rob Bowman posted at For An Answer. And if you repeat the same meaningless, already refuted, argument again I will post the rebuttal by Ray Goldsmith.

I have found you posting this same argument at several boards using different names, Georg, G, and probably Dan Parker at B-Greek.

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Sc...20NWT.htm#BDAG

As I said, I have evolved my argument to eliminate the argumentum ad piffle of some without harming the force of my argument. Those links don't address what I have recently posted. If you look at what Bowman wrote on BDAG re Romans 9:5 he basically said he did not agree with it. That is a tacit admission that the BDAG agrees with JW theology more so than Trinitarian theology.

In addition there is nothing to address the use of Hebrews 1:8 in section 2 of QEOS of Christ where I point out that since they cite Psalms 45:6-7 in BDAG to compare to Hebrews 1:1, that this can only be a reference to QEOS of someone who is a King for God, not God himself.

Since Hebrews 1:8 is the only verse in section 2 traditionally used by Trinitarians to support their theology, all of the objections in the links to which you refer have been addressed.

[OldShepherd]

As I said, I have evolved my argument to eliminate the argumentum ad piffle [Meaningless garbage, addresses nothing!] of some without harming the force of my argument. Those links don't address what I have recently posted. If you look at what Bowman wrote on BDAG re Romans 9:5 he basically said he did not agree with it. [Do NOT even think about saying what someone meant without quoting exactly what he said!] That is a tacit admission [Your opinion in worthless!] that the BDAG agrees with JW theology more so than Trinitarian theology.

In addition there is nothing to address the use of Hebrews 1:8 in section 2 of QEOS of Christ where I point out that since they cite Psalms 45:6-7 in BDAG to compare to Hebrews 1:1, that this can only be a reference to QEOS of someone who is a King for God, not God himself.

Since Hebrews 1:8 is the only verse in section 2 traditionally used by Trinitarians to support their theology, all of the objections in the links to which you refer have been addressed.

You accused me of begging the question. That is exactly what you are doing. Note very carefully the ref. to Heb 1:8 which supposedly supports your argument .

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.[ . . . ]

Even Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles can see that the Heb 1:8 ref. is between to citations which BDAG clearly says, unequivocally, call Jesus God. But Cal, interjecting his own assumptions/presuppositions would have us believe somehow it is saying something entirely different than the sentence before and after the Heb 1:8 ref.

Surely no reasonable, rational adult with an average education can be as stupid as this sounds. If you want to address anything I posted then you quote it, and address all the points NOT just make some vague statement, merely parroting "I have addressed all your objections."

Here are your so-called refined arguments, since you returned to the forum after your 2 year tuck tail and run. Please show us where you have addressed anything specific in my posts? You have not!

No, I merely state a fact. Both in Ex 7:1and John 1:1,one can be said to be called QEOS/elohim without identifying one ontologically with the Almighty God. If you don't like the comparison I suggest you take it up with Danker. My application of the intent of BDAG is accurate.

I have highlighted what are your meaningless opinions NOT what BDAG actually says.

You beg the question. [You do not have a clue what this means!] Since you have had time to analyze the entry, why does BDAG cite Ex 7:1 for the problem of John 1:1 if it does not resolve. it. [Your inability to understand this point is NOT proof of your argument!] Perhaps you are not convinced that it does not resolve it, but evidently [You guessing what the author might have meant does NOT prove your argument!] the editor was because that is the entire reason he gives after explaining the problem. He does not indicate that the problem remains after this evidence.

I asked you, and have not seen the answer. Why do you, as an authority on BDAG, say that they tell us to compare Ex 7:1 with John 1:1?

"on the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 {cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6}: s. beg of this entry.

Your assumptions/presuppositions about why Danker made this statement does NOT prove your argument, OBTW did you "s[ee] beg[ginning] of this entry. as Danker suggested?

Without further ado please see beginning of the article and tell us what BDAG says, NOT how your preexisting mindset reinterprets it.

If, as you claim, this one sentence supports the mindless assertion that the anarthrous theon, John 1:1c, means "a god" how is that a problem, and for whom, since according to JW doctrine, "elohim", Ex 7:1, means "a god" not YHWH?

[ . . . ]Not necessarily. There is more than one way to view Hebrews 1:8. [Equivocation does NOT prove your argument!] 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. [Equivocation, NOT proof!] The former view fits section 2 and since Danker does not say otherwise there is no contradiction.

This last objection is addressed in detail in all three posts.

Which Hebrew king does Heb 1:8 describe? I think you meant Psalm 45, vice Heb 1:8, but the ancient Jews never interpreted the Psalm as referring to a human king, but to the King Messiah.

Pre-Christian Targum Psalm 45
1. For praise; concerning those who sit in the Sanhedrin of Moses, which was spoken in prophecy by the sons of Korah; a good lesson, and a psalm, and a thanksgiving.

2. My heart desires fine speech; I will speak my work to the king; the utterance of my tongue is quick, like the pen of a fluent scribe.

3. Your beauty, O King Messiah, is greater than the sons of men; the spirit of prophecy has been placed on your lips; because of this the Lord [25] has blessed you forever.

4. Gird your sword on your thigh, O champion;[26] your glory[27] and your brilliance is to kill kings as well as rulers.

5. And your brilliance is great; therefore you will succeed in mounting the horse[28] of the kingdom, by reason of faithfulness and truth and humility and righteousness; and the Lord will teach you to do fearful things with your right hand.

6. Your arrows are drawn to kill Gentile hordes; beneath you they will fall; and the sons[29] of your bow will be released into the heart of the enemies of the king.

7. The throne of your glory, O Lord, [30] lasts forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an upright scepter.

8. Because you [31] have loved righteousness and hated wickedness – because of this the Lord your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your fellows.

Footnotes.

[25] The LORD: God.
[26] O champion: like a champion.
[27] Glory: splendor.
[28] Horse: throne.
[29] Sons: arrows.
[30] O LORD: O God in heaven.
[31] Because you: + O King Messiah.

Also there was no human king of Israel that fit all the attributes listed in the psalm see vss. 16, 18.

[Cal_Minian]

You accused me of begging the question. That is exactly what you are doing. Note very carefully the ref. to Heb 1:8 which supposedly supports your argument .

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.[ . . . ]

Even Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles can see that the Heb 1:8 ref. is between to citations which BDAG clearly says, unequivocally, call Jesus God. But Cal, interjecting his own assumptions/presuppositions would have us believe somehow it is saying something entirely different than the sentence before and after the Heb 1:8 ref.

Surely no reasonable, rational adult with an average education can be as stupid as this sounds. If you want to address anything I posted then you quote it, and address all the points NOT just make some vague statement, merely parroting "I have addressed all your objections."

Here are your so-called refined arguments, since you returned to the forum after your 2 year tuck tail and run. Please show us where you have addressed anything specific in my posts? You have not!



I have highlighted what are your meaningless opinions NOT what BDAG actually says.

"on the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 {cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6}: s. beg of this entry.

Your assumptions/presuppositions about why Danker made this statement does NOT prove your argument, OBTW did you "s[ee] beg[ginning] of this entry. as Danker suggested?

Without further ado please see beginning of the article and tell us what BDAG says, NOT how your preexisting mindset reinterprets it.

If, as you claim, this one sentence supports the mindless assertion that the anarthrous theon, John 1:1c, means "a god" how is that a problem, and for whom, since according to JW doctrine, "elohim", Ex 7:1, means "a god" not YHWH?



This last objection is addressed in detail in all three posts.

Which Hebrew king does Heb 1:8 describe? I think you meant Psalm 45, vice Heb 1:8, but the ancient Jews never interpreted the Psalm as referring to a human king, but to the King Messiah.

Pre-Christian Targum Psalm 45
1. For praise; concerning those who sit in the Sanhedrin of Moses, which was spoken in prophecy by the sons of Korah; a good lesson, and a psalm, and a thanksgiving.

2. My heart desires fine speech; I will speak my work to the king; the utterance of my tongue is quick, like the pen of a fluent scribe.

3. Your beauty, O King Messiah, is greater than the sons of men; the spirit of prophecy has been placed on your lips; because of this the Lord [25] has blessed you forever.

4. Gird your sword on your thigh, O champion;[26] your glory[27] and your brilliance is to kill kings as well as rulers.

5. And your brilliance is great; therefore you will succeed in mounting the horse[28] of the kingdom, by reason of faithfulness and truth and humility and righteousness; and the Lord will teach you to do fearful things with your right hand.

6. Your arrows are drawn to kill Gentile hordes; beneath you they will fall; and the sons[29] of your bow will be released into the heart of the enemies of the king.

7. The throne of your glory, O Lord, [30] lasts forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an upright scepter.

8. Because you [31] have loved righteousness and hated wickedness – because of this the Lord your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your fellows.

Footnotes.

[25] The LORD: God.
[26] O champion: like a champion.
[27] Glory: splendor.
[28] Horse: throne.
[29] Sons: arrows.
[30] O LORD: O God in heaven.
[31] Because you: + O King Messiah.

Also there was no human king of Israel that fit all the attributes listed in the psalm see vss. 16, 18.

Nice try, but BDAG does not cite the Targums. It is a Greek Lexicon. I also don't see a comment from you defending what BDAG says on Romans 9:5, something which leads up to the comment they make on John 1:1.