The Trinity.

Yes. But in Revelation it says something about Alpha and Omega.

They certainly have three distinct voices throughout the Psalms. There is no explaining that away.

Hi you make many assumptions about me. I believe in Jesus but as to which form (Trinitarian, Unitarian, JW etc....) I have a lot of unanswered questions due to conflicting passages.

I am coming at this in a ‘pragmatic’ way to get information, clarification, examination, hermeneutics of the text etc… an approach to find the truth.

IMO the best way to do this is to Q text and see if a clear explanation can be found which provides the strongest evidence.

I’m not sure that this site is the appropriate forum for debating or questioning Trinitarian approach, which is not what I am doing, but may seem like this to some.

With respect to your very detailed point, you don’t really respond to the points I raised, which was a simple point if John 1:1 Jesus is the ‘word’ – how at Luke 7:18-23 JtB doesn’t know if Jesus is the ‘word’?

You also raise another passage which I am having difficulty understanding; John 16:7 ‘advocate’ - why does Jesus need to go away before the ‘advocate’ comes as the HS has been here from the beginning and throughout?

When I used the word “pragmatic,” it may not have come off clearly. So let me rephrase what I’m trying to communicate a little: Test the claim of “logical incoherency” against the paradigm and backdrop you are criticizing, instead of casting it against a falsely constructed paradigm and labeling it “Trinitarian.” If you really want to offer a rebuttal to an argument or to a theological perspective, then you need to be able to know the “in’s” and “out’s” of the subject passage before you offer such a conclusive remark, as you did by suggesting logical incoherency.

Does that make sense? The point is, you should make every effort to understand what the opposing side believes (theologically), and how they interpret the text, that way you can better interact with it.

Personally, your claim of “logical incoherency” is equivocal to a ball of string. Balls of string are very difficult to unravel. And sometimes the more you pull on a strand, the more entangled it gets. Not only do I sense that you are approaching this from a Unitarian angle, but that has also influenced the way you interpret key portions of the text, especially Jn. 1:1c. You have reached a conclusion about Jn. 1:1c, and are now casting that interpretation back on to “Trinitarianism,” as if your conclusions about that specific portion of the text is really the Trinitarian’s conclusion (it’s not). This is what I mean by “casting” or “projecting” your own theological constructs and worldviews back onto other theologies.

From our perspective, the author distinguishes “the Word” from the one whom He is “with,” in a facet of ways. To briefly summarize:

• John is habitual in his usage of πρὸς τὸν θεόν (1:1b), especially in reference to Christ’s intimate fellowship and communion with God the Father, as outlined in Post #313.
  
  
• The use of θεὸς in 1:1c is anarthrous, not articular as in 1:1b (τὸν θεόν). What is the significance? Murray J. Harris articulates this well when he states,
  
  “Since it was John’s custom to reserve the title ὁ θεός for the Father, it would have been impossible for him to have written ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός (or ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) without suggesting a precise identification of the person of the Logos (the Son) with the person of the Father. Having just distinguished the Logos from ὁ θεός in verse 1b, would he be likely immediately afterward to dissolve that personal distinction? For him to have used ὁ θεός in the predicate of verse 1c would have implied either that subject and predicate were identical or coextensive or that this predicate referred to none other than the ὁ θεός of the preceding clause (the article being anaphoric; see §D.3.a(4) above). As it is, in verse 1c John maintains the distinction between the Logos and the Father that he has drawn in verse 1b, while at the same time affirming the participation of the Logos in the divine essence (θεός).” (Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, p. 64)
  
  
• Jn. 1:3’s usage of the διὰ + genitive construct (“through Him”) denotes personal agency (cf. Jn. 1:7, 1:10, 3:17), and is frequently used in contexts which discuss Christ’s pre-existence (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2).
  
  
• Jn. 1:18 forms an inclusio with Jn. 1:1, in that both texts speak of “close, intimate communion,” “timeless existence,” and (depending on the textual variant) “predicated deity.” But there is another aspect that also bridges 1:18 to 1:1, and that is: 1 Sam. 3:1-21. In 1 Sam. 3:21, the “Word of the LORD” appears in a vision, for the sole intent of doing that which John otherwise attributes to Christ (Jn. 1:18): Revealing God to men (cf. Jn. 14:9).

You referenced Luke 7:18-23, and asked why John the Baptist would have “doubted” if it was the Apostle John’s intent to identify Christ as “the Word.”

Notice I identified two John’s. One is “John the Baptist,” the other is the “Apostle John.” I hope entangled somewhere in your objection, that you were not conflating the two John’s. I know it seems like it may be quite an amature mistake, but that’s the only way I could make sense of your objection. But Either way, I have to ask: How does John the Baptist’s doubts have anything to do whether or not Christ is identified as “the Word” in Jn. 1:1?

You are conflating two very different accounts. The Gospel of John’s account does not highlight John the Baptist’s “doubting,” but rather, casts light onto “doubting Thomas.”

Notice what Luke 7 does and does not say. Luke 7 nowhere says that John the Baptists didn’t believe Jesus was the Word. He just had doubts that the historical figure we know as Jesus Christ was the “expected one.” He knew someone was going to fulfill the things he had prophesied, but whether or not that one was the historical Jesus, was where he had questions. Lapsed into that was Christ’s identity as the Messiah. Does that therefore mean that Jesus couldn’t be the Messiah, simply because John the Baptist (for a moment) doubted that Christ was the anticipated Messiah? No. Therefore, this “objection” is really quite silly.

Instead of “trying” to raise an objection (a rather weak one, at that), why not take a pragmatic approach and try to come at this from a Trinitarian angle? The thing you say “defies logic,” really does no such thing at all.

You have two issues that intersect one another at a very critical point:

You impose your Unitarian worldview/framework back onto the Trinitarian when objecting to “Trinitarianism.” Thus, your Unitarian assumptions tend to “bleed over” onto other theologies. Your comments aren’t even an objection to “Trinitarianism,” per se. Rather, it is an objection towards a form of Unitarianism known as Modalism. The hidden presupposition underlying Modalism (like other brands of Unitarianism) is simply this: God is one sole individual.

Because you (being a Unitarian) think “God is one sole individual,” you impose that back onto me (a Trinitarian), when that is not what I believe. By doing so, you assume I (a Trinitarian) am a Unitarian, namely, of the Modalistic variety.

The difference between Modalism (a brand of Unitarianism) and Trinitarianism is that Modalism believes that “Jesus” pre-existed (in distinction from Trinitarianism) as the Father. That is, like all of their Unitarian counterparts, they believe there is one singular person in heaven, the Father. Hence, to them, Jesus is the Father. But for the Trinitarian, we do not believe that. We believe Jesus pre-existed eternally alongside the Father, thereby, existing in a “You,” “I,” “We” relationship. And that's where your issue is. You are conflating our theology (Trinitarian) with your Unitarian assumptions.

There are (14) instances in the Gospel of John alone, where some slight variation of the phrase πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jn. 1:1b) is used. The number swells to (17) if we also include John’s Epistles. And if the Apocalypse is included, it swells to a whopping (19) occurrences.

This language (with some slight variation), is elsewhere used throughout the Testaments — including Acts 4:24, 12:5, 24:16; Romans 5:1, 10:1, 15:30; 2 Cor. 3:4, 13:7; Philippians 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:8, 9) — and another 20+ examples in the Genesis and Exodus accounts of the Greek OT (Gen. 17:18, 18:27, 18:31, 20:17, 24:49, 24:54, 24:46; Exodus 2:23, 3:11, 3:13, 8:25, 8:26, 9:29, 10:18, 18:19, 19:8, 19:21, 19:23, 19:24, 24:1, 24:2, 32:30). In each of these occurrences (aside from the occurrences where the neuter article τὰ is present), they explicitly refer to distinct individuals in some form of communication with one another.

In each instance (aside from the few that you would dispute, i.e., Jn. 1:1, 1:2, and likely 1 Jn. 1:2) there is real personal and numerical distinction. This is standard Johannine rhetoric when speaking of Christ’s decent/ascent to the heavenly places. Take Jn. 13:1-12 (Lexham) as an example,



Within the span of just a few short sentences, John uses such language (twice) in the immediate context to speak of Christ’s departing “to” God (and seven more times as the narrative progresses). But the reason for citing this example in Jn. 13 is not only to show the frequency in which John uses the language, but also the surrounding context in which it is used. There are conceptual similarities in Jn. 13 to the earlier Pauline work to the Philippians.

In Jn. 13, (and pay attention to the details of this) “knowing (εἰδὼς) He had come forth from God and was going away to God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν),” Christ rises from the table and lays aside His “outer garments,” clothing Himself with a towel (v. 4). In Phil. 2, Christ divests Himself of His glorious garments (vv. 6-7) by clothing Himself with human nature (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9).

In Phil. 2, Christ takes the form of a slave, yet, in Jn. 13, He performs a menial task often assigned to slaves (washing the feet of others).

In Jn. 13, upon completion of this task, Christ once again takes up His (former) outer garments. In Phil. 2, after His work on earth is finished, He returns to the visible glory with the Father that was His before time.

In Phil. 2, Christ is exalted by the Father and sits down (once more) on His heavenly throne, yet, in Jn. 13, Christ resumes His place at the table, from which He had temporarily departed.

The story in Jn. 13 is an example of humble service. In Phil. 2, Paul uses the incarnation and humiliation of Christ as an example of humble service (Phil. 2:1-5).

With the imagery and conceptual ties to Phil. 2 in the backdrop, John seizes upon language from his prologue (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) and weaves it back into the narrative to demonstrate that Christ will once more “resume His place at the table,” from which He had once departed (Jn. 1:1). He was “with” God in the beginning (Jn. 1:1, Phil. 2:6), and was now going back to God (Jn. 13:3-4, Phil. 2:9-11), seated at the right hand of God. But even more striking are that the words recorded in Jn. 13:3-4 are not the “spoken words” of Christ (or of the narrator for that matter), but even as the narrator explains, are the “inner-thinkings” (εἰδὼς) of Christ, which seems to form yet another connection to Phil. 2:6 in that both texts place Christ’s thoughts and contemplations on “equality with God,” which again points us back to the prologue, Jn. 1:1. Fresh on Christ’s mind was: πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jn. 1:1, 13:3-4), which He then goes on to elaborate/reflect on (or, “speak His mind”) in the ensuing narrative (specifically, Chapters 14 through 17):



And it is this very language that is used when speaking about Christ’s return “to” God, pointing back to Jn. 1:1, πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.

It really is just that simple.

When I used the word “pragmatic,” it may not have come off clearly. So let me rephrase what I’m trying to communicate a little: Test the claim of “logical incoherency” against the paradigm and backdrop you are criticizing, instead of casting it against a falsely constructed paradigm and labeling it “Trinitarian.” If you really want to offer a rebuttal to an argument or to a theological perspective, then you need to be able to know the “in’s” and “out’s” of the subject passage before you offer such a conclusive remark, as you did by suggesting logical incoherency.

Does that make sense? The point is, you should make every effort to understand what the opposing side believes (theologically), and how they interpret the text, that way you can better interact with it.

Personally, your claim of “logical incoherency” is equivocal to a ball of string. Balls of string are very difficult to unravel. And sometimes the more you pull on a strand, the more entangled it gets. Not only do I sense that you are approaching this from a Unitarian angle, but that has also influenced the way you interpret key portions of the text, especially Jn. 1:1c. You have reached a conclusion about Jn. 1:1c, and are now casting that interpretation back on to “Trinitarianism,” as if your conclusions about that specific portion of the text is really the Trinitarian’s conclusion (it’s not). This is what I mean by “casting” or “projecting” your own theological constructs and worldviews back onto other theologies.

From our perspective, the author distinguishes “the Word” from the one whom He is “with,” in a facet of ways. To briefly summarize:

• John is habitual in his usage of πρὸς τὸν θεόν (1:1b), especially in reference to Christ’s intimate fellowship and communion with God the Father, as outlined in Post #313.
  
  
• The use of θεὸς in 1:1c is anarthrous, not articular as in 1:1b (τὸν θεόν). What is the significance? Murray J. Harris articulates this well when he states,
  
  “Since it was John’s custom to reserve the title ὁ θεός for the Father, it would have been impossible for him to have written ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός (or ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) without suggesting a precise identification of the person of the Logos (the Son) with the person of the Father. Having just distinguished the Logos from ὁ θεός in verse 1b, would he be likely immediately afterward to dissolve that personal distinction? For him to have used ὁ θεός in the predicate of verse 1c would have implied either that subject and predicate were identical or coextensive or that this predicate referred to none other than the ὁ θεός of the preceding clause (the article being anaphoric; see §D.3.a(4) above). As it is, in verse 1c John maintains the distinction between the Logos and the Father that he has drawn in verse 1b, while at the same time affirming the participation of the Logos in the divine essence (θεός).” (Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, p. 64)
  
  
• Jn. 1:3’s usage of the διὰ + genitive construct (“through Him”) denotes personal agency (cf. Jn. 1:7, 1:10, 3:17), and is frequently used in contexts which discuss Christ’s pre-existence (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2).
  
  
• Jn. 1:18 forms an inclusio with Jn. 1:1, in that both texts speak of “close, intimate communion,” “timeless existence,” and (depending on the textual variant) “predicated deity.” But there is another aspect that also bridges 1:18 to 1:1, and that is: 1 Sam. 3:1-21. In 1 Sam. 3:21, the “Word of the LORD” appears in a vision, for the sole intent of doing that which John otherwise attributes to Christ (Jn. 1:18): Revealing God to men (cf. Jn. 14:9).

You referenced Luke 7:18-23, and asked why John the Baptist would have “doubted” if it was the Apostle John’s intent to identify Christ as “the Word.”

Notice I identified two John’s. One is “John the Baptist,” the other is the “Apostle John.” I hope entangled somewhere in your objection, that you were not conflating the two John’s. I know it seems like it may be quite an amature mistake, but that’s the only way I could make sense of your objection. But Either way, I have to ask: How does John the Baptist’s doubts have anything to do whether or not Christ is identified as “the Word” in Jn. 1:1?

You are conflating two very different accounts. The Gospel of John’s account does not highlight John the Baptist’s “doubting,” but rather, casts light onto “doubting Thomas.”

Notice what Luke 7 does and does not say. Luke 7 nowhere says that John the Baptists didn’t believe Jesus was the Word. He just had doubts that the historical figure we know as Jesus Christ was the “expected one.” He knew someone was going to fulfill the things he had prophesied, but whether or not that one was the historical Jesus, was where he had questions. Lapsed into that was Christ’s identity as the Messiah. Does that therefore mean that Jesus couldn’t be the Messiah, simply because John the Baptist (for a moment) doubted that Christ was the anticipated Messiah? No. Therefore, this “objection” is really quite silly.

Yes, thank you for the points raised very helpful & I agree the Luke argument is very week. how would you respond to Somone who says the following;

Notwithstanding your points raised - John 1:1 would arguably translate as "and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God." would that translation not be contradictory?

and what would you have to say to the below what someone has presented to me;

The Greek term `Logos' is derived from the root word `Lego' meaning `to speak'. The literal translation of `Logos' is `something spoken or thought'.

So, should read

In the beginning was the `spoken word/ command', and the `spoken word, command' was with God, and the `spoken word/ command' was Divine.

In `New translation of the Bible' (1922) by the famous Dr. James Moffatt, it reads; "the Logos was Divine." (ie divine command). For example, Jesus in the womb of his mother, Virgin Mary, was made possible by an act of God's command - the "Logos"

Coming out of discussion in one of the threads, "Can you be a true Christian and deny belief in the Trinity?"
Let's discuss.

Yes, thank you for the points raised very helpful & I agree the Luke argument is very week. how would you respond to Somone who says the following;

Notwithstanding your points raised - John 1:1 would arguably translate as "and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God." would that translation not be contradictory?

and what would you have to say to the below what someone has presented to me;

The Greek term `Logos' is derived from the root word `Lego' meaning `to speak'. The literal translation of `Logos' is `something spoken or thought'.

So, should read

In the beginning was the `spoken word/ command', and the `spoken word, command' was with God, and the `spoken word/ command' was Divine.

In `New translation of the Bible' (1922) by the famous Dr. James Moffatt, it reads; "the Logos was Divine." (ie divine command). For example, Jesus in the womb of his mother, Virgin Mary, was made possible by an act of God's command - the "Logos"

how would you respond to Somone who says the following;

Notwithstanding your points raised - John 1:1 would arguably translate as "and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God." would that translation not be contradictory?

“In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father, and Jesus was the Father.”

“There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, ‘In the beginning was the Word.’”

“‘The Word was God... And the Word became flesh,’ simply means the Word was divine... And the Word became human. The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man... .” (Jesus Christ the Same [Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945], p. 61)

@williamjordan

Can you please help with John 10:17-18 the word G2983 lambano which appears in each verse? This is a Trinity issue too since it is about Who raised the Son.

Here is John 10:17 and 10:18 from KJV
Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father.

According to BLB the word G2983 can be translated as "receive" or "take" and the translators went with "take" when it could have been receive. Some newer translations went with "receive."

Can you determine from the Greek which word is correct? This is a key issue since many other verses say Theos or His Father raised Him. If His Father raised Him it would seem that He used the word to mean "receive." The commandment He had from His Father is the promise of Life in the Law to Him in Leviticus 18:5 for His obedience to the Law in saving us.

Also in verse 10:18 the same word is translated received when He says This commandment have I received of My Father.

Your help would be greatly appreciated, Thank you

“For this reason, the Father loves Me… .”

“…because I lay down My life for the sheep, that I might take it up again.”

The term “receive” is quite nuanced ever so slightly. The question boils down to this: If I “receive” a gift from you, is that the same as me “taking a gift from you”? Are they mutually exclusive? To “receive” can be understood also as “taking.” So the Father “gives,” Christ “takes” – they are reciprocal concepts.

Look at the tenses of the action verbs throughout Jn. 10:17-18. In Jn. 10:17 it states,



The verb for “love” is in the third person, and is predicated by “the Father.” It is an action “the Father” does, “the Father loves Me… .” The sentence continues,



Notice here, the verb to “lay down” and “take it up” are both in the first person, and are each predicated by the personal possessive pronoun, “I.” It is an action that, “I” (Jesus) does, “I lay down”/“I take it up.”

The terms for “lay down” and “take it up” are active verbs. The term “loves” (used of God the Father) is also active. So in the same way God the Father is performing an active verb (“loves”), so too is the Son performing active verbs (“I lay down,” “I take it up”). The only difference is, the verb that the Father performs is in the third person is something He does towards the Son. But the terms to “lay down,” and “take it up” are not necessarily things God does towards the Son, but things the Son does.

I think it would be a mistake to understand the first half of 10:17 (“I lay My life for the sheep”) as something Christ does, only to understand the juxtaposed phrase in the very next clause (“that I might take it up again”) as anything differently.

Whether one wants to understand the verb as to “receive” or to “take up,” it is something Christ is doing. The verb expresses “possession,” and Christ is wielding that authority and power to “receive” (or “take up”) His life up again.

Jn. 2:19-21 expresses the same idea and thought. I would even argue that Jn. 20:30-31 also speaks of Christ’s “resurrection” as one of the signs/miracles He (Jesus) performed.

Notice, that the only “miracle” in the entire chapter is the resurrection. Yet, v. 30 specifically states (at the heels of Thomas seeing the resurrected Christ), “Now Jesus also performed many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not recorded in this book.” Which particular miracle in the narrative are these “many other signs” set in juxtaposition to? The text speaks of “many other signs,” but what is the primary sign that John is alluding to in Jn. 20? Jn. 20:1-29 provides the answer.

So to answer your question, three times in John is Christ said to have been involved in some way with His resurrection. He died on the cross, but that does not necessarily mean He ceased to exist, particularly in light that He existed without a fleshly body before coming in the flesh.

That said, yes, the Father did raise Jesus from the dead. But I think the evidence points to the resurrection as a Triune act, hence, even the Spirit is said to have raised Christ from the dead (Rom. 8:11).

That said, yes, the Father did raise Jesus from the dead. But I think the evidence points to the resurrection as a Triune act, hence, even the Spirit is said to have raised Christ from the dead (Rom. 8:11).

Correct. This matter should not even have come up, but some love their fantasies.

Well, here’s the thing: My prior post actually addresses the question you now present. That tells me that you have probably not understood my words to their fullest import (as I intended them).

This is not intended as a criticism towards you, but I think it would be good for you to go back over my prior post (and multiple times, if necessary) until the points that I made, click. I do not think you are “saturated” enough in the material to really recognize how my post anticipates the objections you raise here. This is probably not something that will come to you overnight, but rather, it may take 50 (or more) times before the light bulb goes off.

Needless to say, I only want to help you (and others who might be wondering the same thing). So let me show you how my points anticipate your objection. If something is not clear, let me know and I will try to elucidate further.

You asked,



I think the question you ask highlights some significant problems that both, you (and possibly, the one presenting this) are making. You are reading the text in a way, which I previously explained was problematic. Recall the first two points I had made in my previous post:

• John is habitual in his usage of πρὸς τὸν θεόν (1:1b), especially in reference to Christ’s intimate fellowship and communion with God the Father, as outlined in Post #313.
  
  
• The use of θεὸς in 1:1c is anarthrous, not articular as in 1:1b (τὸν θεόν). What is the significance? Murray J. Harris articulates this well when he states,
  
  “Since it was John’s custom to reserve the title ὁ θεός for the Father, it would have been impossible for him to have written ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός (or ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) without suggesting a precise identification of the person of the Logos (the Son) with the person of the Father. Having just distinguished the Logos from ὁ θεός in verse 1b, would he be likely immediately afterward to dissolve that personal distinction? For him to have used ὁ θεός in the predicate of verse 1c would have implied either that subject and predicate were identical or coextensive or that this predicate referred to none other than the ὁ θεός of the preceding clause (the article being anaphoric; see §D.3.a(4) above). As it is, in verse 1c John maintains the distinction between the Logos and the Father that he has drawn in verse 1b, while at the same time affirming the participation of the Logos in the divine essence (θεός).” (Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, p. 64)

The way you phrased the question is directly at odds with these two points. “Why,” you may be asking? Because, if I am understanding you correctly (as this is the only way I can fathom a “contradiction”), you are suggesting that the text is being read like this:



Notice, you are supplementing “the Father” for the term, “God.” This is what point 1 and 2 (from above) are geared towards addressing. The simple fact is, neither “Jesus” nor “the Father” are mentioned in the verse, verbatim. Though, it is correct to assume that both are spoken of. Point 2 was geared at addressing the distinction between ὁ θεός in Jn. 1:1b, and θεός in 1:1c, and showing why one cannot interpret 1:1c as a reference to “the Father.” θεός in 1:1c is a preverbal predicate nominative, not the subject. It is further describing something about “the Word,” not “the Father.” Hence, it would be a mistake to read the text in either fashion:

• “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God (the Father), and the Word was God (the Father)”
• “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with the God, and the Word was the God.”

The simple fact is, θεός in 1:1c lacks the article (“the”), which would be necessary had John wanted to identify “the Word” as the one whom He is “with” (Jn. 1:1b). That said, take the simple phrase, which I think will help you understand the differences:

• That which is born of the flesh is the flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is the spirit
• That which is born of the flesh is a flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is a spirit
• That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit

Notice the subtle nuances. The first option expresses definiteness (“the flesh,” “the spirit”). The second option expresses indefiniteness (“a flesh,” “a spirit”). The third option expresses qualitativeness and lacks the article (whether it be definite or indefinite) altogether (“flesh,” “spirit”). It is this qualitative understanding that Jn. 1:1c is understood. It neither refers to “the Word” as “the God,” “a god,” but simply “God” in a qualitative sense. I personally like the way the 2nd century bishop, Clement of Alexandria penned it in his commentary on 1 John (where he alludes to Jn. 1:1),



As to your question pertaining to Moffatt: People have all sorts of motives for citing Moffatt, but none for reasons that Moffatt himself belabors.

Some cite Moffatt’s translation in attempt to prove such things that Moffatt himself did not believe the passage in question (Jn. 1:1) taught.

Jehovah’s Witnesses cite Moffatt as a voice that supports their translation. “Biblical Unitarians” cite Moffatt as a voice for their interpretation. Ironically, both of them cannot be right, as they are completely at odds with one another. But neither of them let Moffatt provide his own interpretation to his translation.



Moffatt’s translation of Jn. 1:1 is underscoring what, over a thousand years earlier, Clement of Alexandria was pointing out above. So the text is actually one of the key passages used in understanding Christ's equality with God the Father, that He shares the same substance.

It makes what has been shared concerning the Son's prayers being in the Psalms even that much more special. For 2000 years people did not see it and even those who study the Scriptures today still have not seen it for the most part.

Do you know why most people do not see this? BECAUSE IT SIMPLY IS NOT THERE. It is just your own private fantasy. Just imagine -- for over 2,000 years every Christian "missed" this "new" revelation. Is that even credible?

Many words of Christ have been prophesied in the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 22). That is not in question. But to make your preposterous claims is something else.