Today @ 12:35 AM post located here
Reasonable:

Well, if it was a cut and paste from an anti-Trinitarian web site, it must be wrong, huh? I don't have to defend William Barclay's analysis. I'm not a greek scholar and neither are you. I just read what the scholars have to say. You said you were not aware of theos being used as an adjective and I pointed out a scholar who disagrees. I could point out more too but your response would be the same. But, if you want to check out the book, it's available at Border's Bookstores and possibly Barnes&Noble.

Like Hannibal Smith used to say "I love it when a plan comes together." See addition to my previous post. Do you have any more chopped up, phonied up, JW cut and paste for me? The site I linked to has reviewed virtually every piece of JW anti-Trinitarian writing and exposed their deception and I will be glad to expose them and you. Call, raise, or fold.

Today @ 03:56 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



Like Hannibal Smith used to say "I love it when a plan comes together." See addition to my previous post. Do you have any more chopped up, phonied up, JW cut and paste for me? The site I linked to has reviewed virtually every piece of JW anti-Trinitarian writing and exposed their deception and I will be glad to expose them and you. Call, raise, or fold.

[Biting my tounge because I know all those reading this thread will see who is being...unreasonable]

OS, you should do a little more research before coming off so cocky. I am not familair with the book you are talking about (but I would like to get it as I did enjoy the one book of Barclay I do have) but I find it hard to believe you were not able to read the title of the book I was quoting from, of which words do not even appear in the website you quoted. How in the world did you miss this point? Is this representative of the quality of research you do? And where in the world did you get the idea I was not a Trinitarian? I quoted a Trinitarian, not to disprove the Trinity but to show that theos is used as an adjective of Christ. That is, Christ is of the same nature as God the Fther but not identical to God the Father.

The book Barclay wrote that I was quoting from is called "Jesus as They Saw Him" and I gave you all the information you need to find it as it is still available. I bought it at Borders last year. Or you can order on the internet.

http://www.alibris.com/search/search...wmy0m40sfcz9Vw

or from Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...841472-5494569

Instead of being so bitter when someone shows you a differing opinion, you might want to actually consider what they said and at least, at LEAST read what they said (and where they got it from) so you don't look like a fool.

IronMetro,

I apologize for sidetracking the thread.

In your previous comments you wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The personal pronouns act merely as supportive evidence. As I stated prior, the evidence for "personality" of the 'Logos' is derived primarily from the immediate context etc.

And

John 1:7 tells us of the Baptist who witnessed to the 'Light' i.e. Christ. Cf..Jn1:23. John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus. Cf..Jn20:31 The personaity of @he 'Logs' is cnsistenly emphhsized it the pr.logue. "The monogenhs God who is in the bosom of the Father.." Cf..Jn1:1.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Logos can be understood as God’s plan of salvation. John definitely witnessed to that light. He preached the need of repentance as a condition of entering the Kingdom of God, Mt. 3:2, 8; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:2, 3, 7,8. He also preached the coming of the Messiah and the judgment to come, Mt 3:11, 12; Mk 1:7, 8; Lk 3:16, 17.

Notice the comment Luke made in 3:18; “So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.” There are two parts to the gospel message, the Kingdom of God and Jesus. Compare Acts 8:12 and Acts 28:31. The ‘Light’ to which John witnessed was more than just Jesus, it involved the Kingdom of God as well.

With this in mind, I believe you are reading the personification the Apostle John intended as a person and I don’t believe you should.

Your statement, “John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus,” is extremely misleading. You should not let your enthusiasm for the trinity bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren’t there. Since the name of Jesus isn’t mentioned until verse 17 and the mention of Jesus’ birth isn’t until verse 14, I don’t believe Jesus should be read ‘back’ into verse 12. I believe it is more reasonable to consider the name in which people are to believe is the name of God.

Consider the distinction John made in Lk 3:8 and Mt 3:9. He spoke of God raising “up children to Abraham” from the stones on the ground. He spoke of the power of God and the idea of the Messiah before he specifically identified Jesus as the Messiah. I believe this supports understanding the name in John 1:12 as being that of God and not of Jesus.
There is no reason to believe John the Baptist believed Jesus was God.

Ron

I once started a Greek correspondence course from Moody Bible Institute. I never finished it. The text book used for this course was Essentials of New Testament Greek by Ray Summers. Broadman Press. Nashville, TN 1950

In Lesson 32 , The Article, on Page 129-130, Ray Summers says, “This difference is clearly seen in the use of ‘ho theos’ and ‘theos’. ‘Ho theos’ is used of the divine Person “God.” ‘Theos’ is used (generally) of the divine character or essence of God. Thus ‘in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (‘ton theon’) and the Word was divine (‘theos’)’ gives the sense.”

Ron

Moderated By: Undisclosed

Reasonable - Your second post is fine. And your apology to OS shows good character on your part. Thank you. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Yesterday @ 09:49 AM post located here
Reasonable:

OS,
After looking at my above post, I realize it was negative and attacking. I apologize for that. it was not my intentions to attack you and i regret the way i said things.

And moderator: I know I am not supposed to post twice in a row but an apology was in order on my behalf and delaying apologies is never a good thing. But you can chastise me anyway if you want

Moderated By: Undisclosed

It's hard to decide if this aspect of the argument [i.e. the rendering of 'theos' in Jn1] should continue in this thread or be discussed in one of it's own. This being that it's somewhat relevant to the topic yet at the same time not entirely in some's opinion. I'll make an attempt (as best I can) to keep my argument on this particular aspect to a minimum. OS, Reasonable - either of you are more than welcome to start a new thread on the topic. I'd be interested in viewing/discussing the topic as well. Thank you. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Entertaining this issue for a bit....

Citation from Daniel Wallace's 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics':

"The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father" [Wallace, p. 269].

The occurence of theos in reference to the logos is more along the lines of "the/a deity" rather than merely "divine''. That is the point I believe OS is trying to make. As stated before, had "divine" been in the Apostles mind he would have most likely used theios.

**I should make my point in arguing the above clear in that I believe it works against the logos being the mere "plan" of God. Rather it makes the ''Word'' itself a personal deity. Personal like that in 1Jn1:1-2 and Revelation 19:13. See also 1Cor1:24...cf...Prov8:22 for a similar idea.

However, because the rendering of 'theos' in John1 is a whole world of argument in and of itself, I'll leave it with the above for now (unless a thread is initiated then I'll participate as best I can there).

>

Ron Macy-

...8<...

Ron Macy:

In your previous comments you wrote,

><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The personal pronouns act merely as supportive evidence. As I stated prior, the evidence for "personality" of the 'Logos' is derived primarily from the immediate context etc.

And

John 1:7 tells us of the Baptist who witnessed to the 'Light' i.e. Christ. Cf..Jn1:23. John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus. Cf..Jn20:31 The personality of the 'Logos' is consistently emphasized in the prologue. "The monogenhs God who is in the bosom of the Father.." Cf..Jn1:1.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Logos can be understood as God’s plan of salvation.

It could be but I don't believe there is any indication of such in the context. Secondly, my whole point from the use of "theos" in reference to the 'Logos' was also meant to indicate otherwise.

Ron Macy:

John definitely witnessed to that light. He preached the need of repentance as a condition of entering the Kingdom of God, Mt. 3:2, 8; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:2, 3, 7,8. He also preached the coming of the Messiah and the judgment to come, Mt 3:11, 12; Mk 1:7, 8; Lk 3:16, 17.

Yet the need for repentance was in preparation for the coming "King". The "Kingdom of God" and the "coming of the Messiah" go hand in hand. You cited Matthew 3:2 yet read vs3. I am basing my interpretation of vs7 from the patent parallels to Jn1:23, 27, 29, 32 etc.

The fallacy with your interpretation is that, although you recognize that Christ is a part of the "plan", you exclude Christ from being the "light" in John's prologue (vs7). Yet this does not work. Why? Read:

John 1:7-8 - "This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him." [NKJV]

Why is it important to John to point out that John the Baptist is not the "Light"? Does the Apostle fear that we might confuse the "Kingdom of God" and the person of 'John the Baptist'? Hardly.

Rather, we are not to confuse the one who came baptizing with the one to whom he was to witness i.e. 'Jesus Christ'.

Now compare with:

vs24 - "Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees. And they asked him, saying "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? John answered them, saying, "I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know. It is He who, coming after me, if preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose." [NKJV]

I.e. a direct parallel to vss 7-8.

Ron Macy:

Notice the comment Luke made in 3:18; “So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.” There are two parts to the gospel message, the Kingdom of God and Jesus. Compare Acts 8:12 and Acts 28:31. The ‘Light’ to which John witnessed was more than just Jesus, it involved the Kingdom of God as well.

Same as above. If you are not excluding Christ as the "Light" to whom John witnessed, then what is your point? John the Baptist is nonetheless witnessing to the person of Christ who ushers in the "Kingdom of God". Your interpretation doesn't harm mine. Rather, it merely serves to set up a smokescreen.

Ron Macy:

With this in mind, I believe you are reading the personification the Apostle John intended as a person and I don’t believe you should.

Why? You have given, IMHO, an unlikely alternative explanation, yet no reason why I should not view the text as it literally reads. Without the use of a priori assumptions, tell me why I shouldn't interpret the prologue as I do. Remember, this has little to do with Trinitarianism and everything to do with preexistence (as the JWs et al believe).

Ron Macy:

Your statement, “John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus,” is extremely misleading. You should not let your enthusiasm for the trinity bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren’t there.

1.] I don't believe it's misleading in the slightest.

2.] My interpretation has nothing to do with my '"enthusiasm"' for the Trinity.

Remember my point on the JWs et al and their common acceptance of Christ's preexistence.

Ron Macy:

Since the name of Jesus isn’t mentioned until verse 17

This of course, assumes that the "name" does not denote 'Jesus'. I may as well counter your argument with the fact that the 'name' of God appears nowhere in the context. Nowhere in the NT in fact.

Again, I based my interpretation, not by 'reading into the text', but by simply drawing a direct parallel i.e. John 20:31 et al. The importance of Christ's *Name* in relation to our salvation is highly emphasized in the New Testament. Notice that {one of} the theme(s) of John's prologue deals with "Life". In fact, in the context of vss 12-13 it is the eternal life granted to those 'born again'. This same idea is explicitly expressed in John3:16-18.

Ron Macy:

and the mention of Jesus’ birth isn’t until verse 14, I don’t believe Jesus should be read ‘back’ into verse 12.

I don't believe the prologue is in "chronological order" per se
. Simply read the previous verse:

vs 11 - "He came to His own, and His own did not recieve Him *. vs 12 But as many as recieved Him, to them He gave the right toi become children of God, to those who believe in His Name."

*This verse precedes vs14 i.e. the 'incarnation' as Trinitarians have it. When did this (vs11) occur?

I may as well include vs7..cf..vs32.

Ron Macy:

I believe it is more reasonable to consider the name in which people are to believe is the name of God.

Yet we see your reasoning for such is unsubstantiated. Are you a JW? Do you believe that the Tetragrammatron plays a role in our salvation? Can you pronouce it? Do you call on the name of 'YHWH' to be saved? Or of the Lord Jesus Christ?

That is, the monogenhs 'God' who is in the bosom {i.e. "with" ..cf.. vs1} the 'Father'.

Ron Macy:

Consider the distinction John made in Lk 3:8 and Mt 3:9. He spoke of God raising “up children to Abraham” from the stones on the ground. He spoke of the power of God and the idea of the Messiah before he specifically identified Jesus as the Messiah. I believe this supports understanding the name in John 1:12 as being that of God and not of Jesus.

(?) I'm not seeing how this is relevant.

Ron Macy:

There is no reason to believe John the Baptist believed Jesus was God.

I believe there is. When I come around to vss 27 and 30 (which further support my interpretation of Jn1:1) I'll explain 'why'.

God bless

Today @ 10:39 AM post located here
Ron Macy:

Logos can be understood as God’s plan of salvation.
* * *
With this in mind, I believe you are reading the personification the Apostle John intended as a person and I don’t believe you should.

Your statement, “John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus,” is extremely misleading. You should not let your enthusiasm for the trinity bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren’t there.

What is wrong with this statement? Would it not be appropriate to say, Ron you should not let your enthusiam for whatever anti-Trinity belief you are espousing bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren't there? I do not see the words or the thought, "God’s plan of salvation." in John 1:1-14. Also I have done considerable research on the word logoV and I don't think "plan" is one of the definitions.

Ron:
Since the name of Jesus isn’t mentioned until verse 17 and the mention of Jesus’ birth isn’t until verse 14, I don’t believe Jesus should be read ‘back’ into verse 12. I believe it is more reasonable to consider the name in which people are to believe is the name of God.

If the logoV of vss. 1-13 is NOT Jesus, how did Jesus, acting on Himself, become flesh in vs. 14? "the Word was made flesh" of the KJV is not totally correct. "the word became flesh" of the NIV and ASV is more correct.

egeneto, in vs. 14, is in the middle-deponent mood. This means that the subject, i.e. the logoV is "the doer or performer of the action."

How can a "plan" in God's mind, or sonic vibrations in the air act on themself and "become" anything?

• John 1:14 And the Word [logoV] was made [egeneto] flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
  
  5784 Voice-Active
  
  The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, "The boy hit the ball," the boy performs the action.
  
  5788 Voice-Middle Deponent
  
  The middle deponent forms in almost all cases are translated as being in the active voice.

Hi Ron,

Ron Macy:
All of these are occurrences of the figure of speech known as metonymy. It does not show the Word of the Lord was equal to God. The phrases Word of the Lord and presence of the Lord are metonymic for God.

Metonymic or not, the fact remains that they were used in the Targums where the Hebrew refers to God, indicates that at the very least they considered the Word to have a personality of its own. If it didn't have personality, then it would not have been depicted in the role of God (a personal being). Thus, the Word of the Lord was a person in Jewish thought. They didn't use the Word of the Lord as a metonym for wind, sunshine, rain, or some other non-personal thing, for example.

That reminds me, by your use of logic, here. The Presence of the Lord is also equal to God, but you made no mention of it. Why was that?

There was no point in mentioning the Presence of the Lord or what the Jews thought of it. We were discussing the Word of the Lord and what it meant to the Jews of John's day, so that we can better understand what John meant in John 1:1. The Jewish concept of the Presence of the Lord is therefore a red herring in this context.

I also go back to the thought, when A is equal to B, A cannot be B. The Word of the Lord being equal to God is, of necessity, separate and distinct from God. If not, equality is meaningless.

Firstly, on a technical note: logically speaking this is false. An equivalence relation has three properties: 1. reflexivity (ie, A=A), 2. transitivity (ie, if A=B and B=C, then A=C), and 3. symmetry (ie, if A=B then B=A). So contrary to what you claimed (if A is B, then A cannot equal B otherwise equality is meaningless), the requirement of reflexivity actually requires that if A is B, then A must equal B, otherwise equality is meaningless. Nothing is more equal to an entity than itself.

Secondly, the orthodox Trinitarian position is as you say - that the Word of the Lord is equal to yet distinct from God (the Father).

But those two points are both a little off-topic. The topic of discussion is Jesus' pre-existence. If the Word of God it is equal to God, who is a person, then the Word of God must be a person in its own right. Thus, Jesus (being the Word made flesh) was a person before his birth.

I will get to your thoughts about John 8:58. I want to see what else comes up about John 1, first. I appreciate your patience.

Ok, I've been patient for a while now, and I've seen you make various arguments against John 1:1. I don't agree with those arguments, but I think it's time to more on and address this verse, because it is far more clear from this verse that Jesus pre-existed his birth. In fact, there are a bunch of such statements which make Jesus' pre-existence obvious - much more so than John 1:1 (which is why it puzzles me that you continue to focus on John 1:1). If you really want to demonstrate that Jesus was not pre-existent, then you've got a bit more work to do.

Here are some verses (all from the NIV):
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Jesus, in his own words, said that he came down from heaven. Which means that he must have been in heaven before he became flesh.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Jesus claimed to have glory before the world began. How could he have something before he existed?

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

If he was returning to his Father, he must have already been with his Father before he became flesh.

Colossians 1:15-17 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

According to Paul, he was "firstborn over all creation", and "by him all things were created". He must have existed before all things if all things were created through him, no? Verse 17 actually says this.

Finally, the clearest one (which I mentioned earlier):

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

He was, before Abraham was born. Unless Abraham was born after Jesus became flesh, then he must have pre-existed his birth.

So forget minor quibblings over John 1:1 - why argue over that speck of dust, when there's an entire sand dune in the rest of the NT testifying to Jesus' pre-existence?

07-30-2003 @ 05:34 PM post located here
OldShepherd:

There is a word [adjective] for divine in Greek, θειος I am not aware of any instant in the NT where θεος is used as an adjective.

This post still has NOT been refuted, despite a quote from William Barclay. ALL the major Greek language sources, BAGD, TDNT, and LSJ, list θεος as a noun, not an adjective. LSJ is linked here. I repeat, unless the occurrence in John 1:1, is the only instant, θεος is never used in the GNT as an adjective and I am not aware of any word/language studies or any examples of this construction with other, non Theologically or Christologically significant, nouns, in the GNT. Thus, the λογος was toward God and was God, the λογος acting on Himself became flesh, therefore the λογος/Jesus preexisted.

http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/c...try%3D%2348292

07-31-2003 @ 12:35 AM post located here
Reasonable:

Well, if it was a cut and paste from an anti-Trinitarian web site, it must be wrong, huh? I don't have to defend William Barclay's analysis. I'm not a greek scholar and neither are you. I just read what the scholars have to say. You said you were not aware of theos being used as an adjective and I pointed out a scholar who disagrees. I could point out more too but your response would be the same. But, if you want to check out the book, it's available at Border's Bookstores and possibly Barnes & Noble.

Barclay was a Universalist, he believed in the end everyone will be saved, saint, sinner, martyr, murderer. Do you think his views on that point also merit consideration?

Yesterday @ 11:57 AM post located here
OldShepherd:



Barclay was a Universalist, he believed in the end everyone will be saved, saint, sinner, martyr, murderer. Do you think his views on that point also merit consideration?

OS,
Your thorough research and fact finding has led you to yet another "brilliant" deduction.

Does anyone else want to field this one? Read the two posts at the top of the page to see what you'll be dealing with. Even when obviously wrong we can't eek an "oops" or an apology out of him. Not the kind of person I want to waste my time on. Now how does this ignore button work...

I'm off to trash all of my books written by Catholic, Episopallian, Methodist, Luthern, Presbyterian or any other scholars who happen to teach a doctrine I don't beleive. After all, if they are wrong on one point, they must be wrong on them all.

Yesterday @ 11:23 PM post located here
Reasonable:

OS,
Your thorough research and fact finding has led you to yet another &quot;brilliant&quot; deduction.

Does anyone else want to field this one? Read the two posts at the top of the page to see what you'll be dealing with. Even when obviously wrong we can't eek an &quot;oops&quot; or an apology out of him. Not the kind of person I want to waste my time on. Now how does this ignore button work...

I'm off to trash all of my books written by Catholic, Episopallian, Methodist, Luthern, Presbyterian or any other scholars who happen to teach a doctrine I don't beleive. After all, if they are wrong on one point, they must be wrong on them all.

I note with interest you ignored my post which immediately precedes the one you are responding to, in which I cite acknowledged Greek language resources. And OBTW was Barclay noted for Greek language studies? I still have seen absolutely no language studies or Biblical exemplars to back up his views on the use of "Theos" in John 1:1. So his view of "theos" is just that his view, NOT a documented historical or Biblical view, just like his view on Universalism. With his view and $2.00 you can get a cup of Latte almost anywhere.

And why should I apologize? You were the one that set the tone for this discussion. I asked reasonable and legitimate questions about your Barclay quote. You replied with a snotty and snide, "Take it up with the scholars. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from." Blowing off my questions and at the same time presuming to teach with one short, undocumneted, unsubstantiated, quote from one guy. I guess everyone here is just supposed to go belly up like a dead carp and believe anything and everything you post without asking any questions.

Evidently just like the followers of Koresh and Jones you have your one scholar, Barclay, you want to believe and no amount of scholarship is going to change your mind.

Hey I think I figured out what got your draw's in a snit. I am terribly sorry that I got the name of your book wrong. But the same words appeared in another book by Barclay, on almost the same pages.

Today @ 12:28 AM post located here
OldShepherd:



I note with interest you ignored my post which immediately precedes the one you are responding to, in which I cite acknowledged Greek language resources. And OBTW was Barclay noted for Greek language studies? I still have seen absolutely no language studies or Biblical exemplars to back up his views on the use of &quot;Theos&quot; in John 1:1. So his view of &quot;theos&quot; is just that his view, NOT a documented historical or Biblical view, just like his view on Universalism. With his view and $2.00 you can get a cup of Latte almost anywhere.

Because I didn't know you needed a certain quota of scholars to give consideration to something. And I'm quite sure if Barclay was in fact the only one who felt that way his opinion would be more valid than yours.

And why should I apologize? You were the one that set the tone for this discussion. I asked reasonable and legitimate questions about your Barclay quote. You replied with a snotty and snide, &quot;Take it up with the scholars. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from.&quot; Blowing off my questions and at the same time presuming to teach with one short, undocumneted, unsubstantiated, quote from one guy. I guess everyone here is just supposed to go belly up like a dead carp and believe anything and everything you post without asking any questions.

Yes. And I think I apologized too. I wasn't trying to defend Barclay or his opinion. You said you hadn't seen anything on theos being an adjective. I wasn't even saying I agreed with Barclay. I was just enlightening you.

Evidently just like the followers of Koresh and Jones you have your one scholar, Barclay, you want to believe and no amount of scholarship is going to change your mind.

One scholar? Look, I wasn't trying to make a big deal out of it. You seem to be somewhat nifty at searching the internet (just not very precise). Search "theos" and "adjective" and see what you come up with. Here's a few more quotes from my own library. Again, I could care less but I do seem to be better informed in this area.

F.F. Bruce (heard of him?)-"Another reason to omit the article [at John 1:1] is if the noun is functioning as a predicate adjective, giving a quality of the subject. That is probably John's reason for not including it here."
"Hard Sayings of the Bible"
Intervarisity Press, 1996, pg 491

The book "Liguistic Key to the Greek New Testament" by Fritz Rienecker and Cleon Rogers states regarding John 1:1, "The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature of theos." (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1980 pg 227) -As quoted from the book "The Trinity: Eidence and Issues" by Robert Morey. (A so-so book on the Trinity)

In his book "Jesus as God", Murray Harris discusses the adjectival meaning of theos at John 1:1 and quotes two more scholars for support. They are R.H. Strachan in his book "The Fourth Gospel: It's Significance and Environment-3rd Ed." (London, SCM, 1941) Harris quotes the book regarding John 1:1 with "Here the word theos has no article, this giving it the significance of an adjective."

Additionally, Harris quotes W. Temple as saying "The term 'God' is fully substantival in the first clause- it is predicative and not far from adjectival in the second."- "Reading St. John's Gospel", London: MacMillan, 1945

And note what those pesky Catholics are up to regarding this verse. The New American Bible states this regarding John 1:1
"Was God:lack of definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

So far your whole argument has been opening a lexicon and noting the word "noun" next to "theos". Silence is not an arguement so unless you have scholars that specifically say "theos" cannot be an adjective then your out weighed 5 scholars to none.

Hey I think I figured out what got your draw's in a snit. I am terribly sorry that I got the name of your book wrong. But the same words appeared in another book by Barclay, on almost the same pages.

Well actually, you got both the words and the book title wrong. Here's both:
________________________________________________
In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, "James is the man," then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was." John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'" (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p23-24)

"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs." -Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21-22

___________________________________________

They're not the same words. And the really bad part was your knee jerk reaction as if I was a JW. I'm through discussing this as this thread is not the place and I really don't have any reason to defend F.F. Bruce or William Barclay. I'm aware there are a number of takes on the grammar around John 1:1, all by Trinitarian scholars. Now you are familiar with one more. I suggest you get "Jesus as God" by Harris as there are a number of different arguments on the meaning of theos. Going to a lexicon won't get you too far in this subject.

Today @ 10:35 PM post located here
Reasonable:

Because I didn't know you needed a certain quota of scholars to give consideration to something. And I'm quite sure if Barclay was in fact the only one who felt that way his opinion would be more valid than yours.

A certain quota of scholars? You quoted one guy, and he is not even a noted Greek scholar.

Yes. And I think I apologized too.

For the second post, not the first.

Here's a few more quotes from my own library. Again, I could care less but I do seem to be better informed in this area.

Other than John 1:1 are there any other examples in the entire creation, of Theos or any other non-Christologically or non-Theologically significant noun being used as an adjective.

F.F. Bruce (heard of him?)- That is probably John's reason for not including it here.

Probably? Now that is REAL convincing

The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature of theos.

My 1996 copy of Morey has, "The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature (John 1:1)", on p. 268. And note this does NOT say Theos IS an adjective. A noun can emphasize the character and nature.

Harris quotes the book regarding John 1:1 with Here the word theos has no article, this giving it the significance of an adjective.

"giving it the significance" does NOT say a noun is an adjective.

The term 'God' is fully substantival in the first clause- it is predicative and not far from adjectival in the second.

"not far from adjectival" Are you serious? "Not far" does not change a noun into an adjective.

And note what those pesky Catholics are up to regarding this verse. The New American Bible states this regarding John 1:1
Was God:lack of definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.

More pesky asininity. What is a predicate? Can a noun be a predicate without being and adjective? Does being a predicate change a noun into an adjective?

So far your whole argument has been opening a lexicon and noting the word "noun" next to "theos".

No I checked three (3) of the major Greek language resources, BAGD, TDNT, and LSJ. And I didn't even mention Strong's or Robertson.

Silence is not an arguement so unless you have scholars that specifically say "theos" cannot be an adjective then your out weighed 5 scholars to none.

You have demonstrated you know diddly squat about language. That is NOT an argument from silence. The resources do not say that Theos is a verb, adverb, preposition, or any other part of speech, you want to argue those are possible too?

I'm aware there are a number of takes on the grammar around John 1:1, all by Trinitarian scholars. Now you are familiar with one more. I suggest you get "Jesus as God" by Harris as there are a number of different arguments on the meaning of theos. Going to a lexicon won't get you too far in this subject.

And I suggest you go to school and study Greek before trying to correct someone who has studied it, instead of just cutting and pasting pieces of various discussions, which you do not appear to understand. FYI I learned to speak Greek in Germany, the year of Sputnik I, when Elvis and I were stationed there. And I will go with the consensus of the early church fathers, rather than a lot of modern scholars, I KNOW they spoke Greek. People like Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John for example.

Again, take up with the scholars. If you know more than F.F. Bruce and Murray Harris, who am I to argue? And yes, Bruce said "probably" because he realizes all of the issues invovled with the text. Something you're painfully ignorant of. I don't have to be an expert on it, I just look and see what the experts say. It's obvious you are not an expert as I've already seen the quality of your research. It amazes me that you act like you know more than the likes of Barclay, Bruce and Harris. You've stuck your foot in your mouth enough times with this discussion alone that I'm gonna stop before you embarass yourself some more.

To quote the words of a grump ole man, "Get outta my face."


Adios

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here
Reasonable:

Again, take up with the scholars. If you know more than F.F. Bruce and Murray Harris, who am I to argue? And yes, Bruce said "probably" because he realizes all of the issues invovled with the text.

Oh now you are a mind reader and know why a certain scholar wrote what he did? Do you do card tricks too? I'm thinking of a card, which one is it?

Something you're painfully ignorant of.

The only ignorance here is yours. You know diddly about Greek. All you have done is post bits and pieces of discussions which you don't even seem to understand. For example, NONE of your quotes prove that a noun is an adjective. Especially when there IS a perfectly adequate adjective for divine/godlike in the Greek language.

And you still have not produced one bit of evidence for any other occurrence of Theos being an adjective, anywhere, Biblical or secular. Or any other noun for that matter. And I have asked several times. If a noun is an adjective then let's see the examples. I'm waiting.

It amazes me that you act like you know more than the likes of Barclay, Bruce and Harris. You've stuck your foot in your mouth enough times with this discussion alone that I'm gonna stop before you embarass yourself some more.

I haven't acted like I know more than anyone, I have simply pointed out how you have misunderstood/misrepresented what they said. You are the one embarrassed because your proofs do not prove what you claim they do.

Now to get this thread back on track. John was a Hebrew speaking Jew, with a Jewish, NOT Hellenistic understanding. Here are two previous posts, on this same thread, one by Socrates and one by me, citing Jewish sources which clearly show that, hundreds of years before the Christian era, Jews understood the memra, Aramaic for "word," was God and God was the memra/word. Memra/word was often used of God Himself and also distinct from God. Therefore in John's understanding the λογος, ie. memra, most certainly preexisted, was with God and was God. And memra is most certainly NOT an adjective.

07-23-2003 @ 12:28 PM post located here
Socrates:

07-30-2003 @ 05:34 PM post located here
OldShepherd:

And here is a post, by me, in another thread with a detailed discussion of θεος from the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek lexicon, which you apparently do not know is abbreviated BAGD. You will note that it is much more than just the word theos with (noun) following it. Lexicons do more than just list words, they also show examples where and how the words are used. And, oh my, you will note this specifically cites John 1:1b, and says absolutely nothing about it being an adjective. Neither does the six page θεος entry in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which you apparently do not know is abbreviated TDNT.

To quote the words of a grump ole man, "Get outta my face."

Now you can go junior. The next time you jump into a discussion, with an attitude, thinking you are going to show some one up, because you have a proof quote or two, you might want to pack a big lunch.