Equative verb in John 1:1 denies pre-existence of Jesus
May 9, 2015 18:24:00 #
Theo
Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida
AN equative verb equates nominals that are in the same case.
A ~Subject - Predicate Nominative~ construction (S-Pn) is a construction where both the subject and the noun in the predicate are nominative; both nominals share equally in qualifying to be the subject, and equally qualify to be the predicate nominative. This "equallity of qualification" requires an "Equative Verb" (EV) to complete the construction.
The EV serves only to obviate the qualification of nominals to serve in a particular capacity in a linguistic application. It has nothing to do with applying some nuance of "equality" applied to the meaning of the nominals under consideration.
EXAMPLE ONE:
[Acts. 28:4] ["...this man is a murderer...](Is said about Saul of Tarsus by Barbarians, who also said Paul was a God [28.:6], neither claim being true)
[phoneus = nominative masculine singular noun "murderer"]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb Eimi "is"]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article "the" or "this"]
[anthrwpos = nominative masculine singular noun "man"]
Some may claim Saul murdered Christians, but that is for God to judge, for it is God who said ("...no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.[I Jn 3:15])
EXAMPLE TWO:
[Mark. 7:26]"The woman was a Greek...,"[h` de gunh hn Ellhnis]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (The)]
[de. = subordinating conjunction]
[gunh = nominative feminine singular noun (woman)]
[hn = indicative feminine 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (was)]
[Ellhnis = nominative feminine singular noun (Greek]
"The woman" designates particularity; but does not indicate exclusivity. Nor is it indicated she was the only "Greek" woman; thus no article before "Greek." She was a Greek, but not the Greek. The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal.
EXAMPLE THREE:
[Luke. 1:7] Elisabeth was barren,[kathoti hn h` Elisabet steira]
[kathoti = subordinating conjunction (because)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3s form of verb eimi (was)]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article] (the)
[Elisabet. = nominative feminine singular noun](proper name) (Elizabeth)
[steira. = nominative feminine singular noun] (barren)
While it was true, "The" Elizabeth was barren, it is also not true that she was the totality of baren women; but Elizabeth is not identifiably all that is woman and barren. The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal.
EXAMPLE FOUR:
[John. 1:1][and. the Word was God.][kai theos hn 'o logos]
[kai = coordinating conjunction (and)]
[theos = nominative masculine singular noun (god)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular verb (eimi)(was)
['o = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[logos = nominative masculine singular noun (logos)]
As neither noun is defined*, we cannot determine from the grammar, much beyond identifying which nominative is the subject, and which nominative is the predicate. The identification is based upon which nominative has the article; 'o logos being the subject; theos serving as the predicate nominative.
[*Does "theos" reference Jehovah, God, The Father? Or does it reference some quality undetermined by the context, such as "godly?" Is the term representative of identity, or quality?]
If both terms "theos" and "'o logos" were articulated (as 'o theos hn 'o logos) the terms would be convertable, and equal as to exchangability, we could say "the word was the God," equally with "the God was the word."
But, the terms are not equally articulated; They are not defined in this reference, beyond the fact 'o logos was pros ton theon (o`logos hn pros ton theon) in the accusative; in which case both terms are articulated.
There is no indication whatsoever as to determination of "beginning." Is it the beginning "of creation?" Is it the beginning "of the gospel age?" There are many "beginnings" referenced in the new testament, many of which have nothing to do with the beginning of creation; i.e., the beginning of sorrows, the beginning of signs of the endtime, etc.
But Jesus used the same language John used when he said "But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at (the) beginning, because I was with you." [John. 16:4]
Still, trinitarian theologians insist the language of John 1:1 -
"En arxh hn o` logos kai o` logos hn pros ton theon kai theos hn o` logos"
parallels that of Moses in Gen 1:1 -
"en arxh epoihsen o` theos ton ouranon kai thn ghn"
COMPARE:
GENESIS 1:1
"en arxh epoihsen o` theos ton ouranon kai thn ghn
The first speaks of God creating -
JOHN 1:1
"En arxh hn o` logos kai o` logos hn pros ton theon kai theos hn o` logos
the 2nd speaks of logos being.
The two are not parallel accounts. And no ammount of redefining pretense will make them parallel.
Jesus was with the disciples in the same "beginning" of which John speaks in 1:1.
I can take any two nominatives and join them with an equative verb, but without definition, no one can say with any degree of certainty, whether they are speaking of the same thing or not, because they are not defined.
"The glup was bleep" fits the construct if both are ascertained to be Nominatives, but without definition, that is about as far as one can go.
"The logos was God" fits the construct, but without definition, they cannot be made equal simply by assertion.
EXAMPLE FIVE:
[Jn.. 1:40] Andrew was the brother.[Hn Andreas o` adelphos]
[Hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi "was"]
[Andreas = nominative masculine singular noun (proper name)(Andrew)]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[adelphos = nomionative masculine singular noun (brother)]
Andrew was not the only brother in the family, though he was the only brother of Simon; therefore, the term "The brother" could apply equally to both Andrew and Simon; yet andrew was not Simon; nor were they identical, as one was older, the other younger, etc. The terms "The brother" and Andrew are not interchangable, because in the family, Andrew was "a" brother, as also was Simon. The terms are not convertible nor equal.
EXAMPLE SIX:
[John. 18:40] "... Now Barabbas was a robber."[hn de o` Barabbas lhsths]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb (eimi)(was)]
[de. = subordinating conjunction]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[Barabbas = nominative masculine singular noun (proper name)(Barabbas)]
[lhsths = nominative masculine singular noun (robber)]
Barabbas was not the only robber, nor is it demonstrated from this verse, that the only robber was one man named "Barrabas." The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal. Yet they are linked by an "equative" verb.
EXAMPLE SEVEN:
I JOHn 4:16 "God is love"
[o` dnms][theos. n-nm-s][agaph. n-nf-s][estin (eimi) vipa--3s]
[o. = nominative masculine singular definite article](The)]
[theos = nominative masculine singular noun (God)]
[agaph = nominative feminine singular noun (love)]
[estiv = indicative present active form of verb eimi (is)]
Equative verbs were previously taught as "copular," or "copulative" or "copulas;" sometimes "Linking" verbs. It simply means to join or link, whichever term you understand it to be, it offers only one application, and that is to link two nouns in the Nominative case, in some particular order.
"Equative" is a term applied to certain linking or copulative verbs, and that has to do with a subject - predicate nominative constuction that has two nominatives equally qualified to serve as subject, and predicate nominative. That is the source of the term "equative" in its linguistic application.
Suppose a group of carpenters and retired carpenters and ex-carpenters assemble, and begin to define themselves by the following rhetoric;"I am a carpenter. They [u]are[/] carpenters. She is a carpenter. He was a carpenter. They were carpenters."
In the cases of "He was" and "They were" - a statement is still equative in form, even if the things equated in that statement no longer equate at the time of speaking because "equative" refers to the function of the verb, not the truth of the statement. The passing time does not mitigate the force of the verb.
Though the tense changes, the three elements are exactly the same: subject, copula, and subject complement. The copula is no less a copula and no less equative because it relates to the past. All tenses are of the same verb "to be" in this example.
It must be further determined as to which is the subject and which is the predicate. Predicate nominative constructions come in two diverse applications of equative verbs; there is a Subject-predicate nominative example in which one nominal is articulated, and the other is not. The articulated nominal will be the Subject, and the non-articulated will be the Predicate Nominative.
The second application relates to a structure where the subject and predicate are convertible, exchangeable, identifiable as one and the same; i.e. either could be
the subject, and the other would serve as the predicate.
EXAMPLE EIGHT:
Mat 13:38 The field is the world;['o de agros estin 'o kosmos]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)
[de = coordinating conjunction (like "kai" in John 1:1)]
[agros nominative masculine singular noun (field)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular verb form of eimi (is)]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[kosmos = nominative masculine singular noun (world)]
["THE FIELD IS THE WORLD" IS THE SAME AS "THE WORLD IS THE FIELD"]
EXAMPLE NINE:
Jn. 1:4 "the life was the light"
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[zwh = nominative feminine singular noun (life)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (was)]
[to = nominative neuter singular definite article (the)]
[phws = nominative neuter singular noun (light)]
["THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT" IS THE SAME AS "THE LIGHT WAS THE LIFE"]
EXAMPLE TEN:
1 John 3:4 [for. sin is the transgression][kai h` amartia estin h` anomia]
[kai = subordinating conjunction (for)]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[amartia = nominative feminine singular noun (sin)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (is)]
[h`= nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[anomia = nominative feminine singular noun (transgression)]
[THE SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION" IS THE SAME AS "THE TRANSGRESSION WAS THE SIN"]
EXAMPLE ELEVEN:
1 John 5:6 [the. Spirit is truth].[to pneuma estin h` alhtheia]
[to = nominative neuter singular definite article (the)]
[pneuma = nominative neuter ingular noun (spirit)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (is)]
[h` nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[alhtheia = nominative feminine singular noun (truth)]
["the truth is the spirit" is the same as "the spirit is the truth"]
{This is true because God sends HIS own spirit; and God is true [John. 3:33]; therefore, his spirit is truth.}
In these examples [EIGHT. THROUGH ELEVEN] both Nominals are articulate. To use two articulates implies that all of one is all of the other. This cannot mean the same as the case in which all of one is some of the other; or some part thereof.
THAT's the "testimony" part; now for the "definition" and "significance" part.
DEFINITION:
Inconvertible; adj. Not Interchangeable.
Interchange; to Put each In the place of the other, equally; transpose; exchange.
Interchangeable; more than one thing capable of replacing each other.
Equal; convertible, interchangable, sharing equality.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The logos was God. "The Logos" is not interchangeable with "God" because "God" does not have the definite article, while "The Logos" does. They are therefore, not interchangeable. When the logos became flesh, [John. 1:14] God DID NOT.
Not one of the scholars over several centuries have seen the significance of this characteristic of "inconvertible terms," meaning interchangeable, though there are many many scholars who express their belief in this simple fact of inconvertibleness of the terms of John 1:1c. Yet none of the scholars even discuss this aspect of the issue. And that is because it is ASSUMED John was referencing a pre-existant Jesus being equal with God, becoming flesh.
In fact, it was Paul who established the meaning of "the logos of God," and John simply confirms Paul's understanding, which should be of no surprise, as the same Holy Spirit inspired the one as inspired the other.
In 48 a.d.
Paul told us " I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." [Gal. 2:20]
"My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,"[Gal. 4:19]
Then Paul told us "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates?"
In 60 a.d.
Paul tells us he was given a comission by God hHimself, to fully [preach the "logos of God" and then tells us he did so to the whole world, and that this "logos of God" (word of God) is a concept of "Christ in you." Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos [word] of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. [Col. 1:25-27]
So Paul tells us God was in Christ, Christ is in me, the "logos of God" is a concept whereby I am in Christ, Christ is in God, and God becomes "all in all."
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:" [I John 4:2]
AND in His Second Epistle - "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." [II. John 7]
"IS COME" is PERFECT ACTIVE in I John 4:2, and is PRESENT PASSIVE in II John 7. Between Paul's writings and John's verification, every aspect of Jesus in me fulfilling the "logos of God," is covered. And when in 96 a.d., at the close of the Holy Spirit's work of producing a written account, John is inspired to tells us "The logos was personified" i.e., "BECAME FLESH" in the saints of every day, up to and including this very present time.
"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." [Col. 3:11]
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." [I Cor 15:28]
John is describing a personification, not a pre-existent deity becoming flesh. And with God in Christ, Christ in me, God is then "all in all" which is exactly what his whole plan was all about. It will be in its final stage when Jesus returns the reigns of rule over to his Father, is made himself subject to the Father, God will be "all in all."
Understanding the limitation of the application of
"equative" as a linguistic tool rather than as an identifier of meaning in an application of the tool, will make a difference in how it is understood everywhere.
A ~Subject - Predicate Nominative~ construction (S-Pn) is a construction where both the subject and the noun in the predicate are nominative; both nominals share equally in qualifying to be the subject, and equally qualify to be the predicate nominative. This "equallity of qualification" requires an "Equative Verb" (EV) to complete the construction.
The EV serves only to obviate the qualification of nominals to serve in a particular capacity in a linguistic application. It has nothing to do with applying some nuance of "equality" applied to the meaning of the nominals under consideration.
EXAMPLE ONE:
[Acts. 28:4] ["...this man is a murderer...](Is said about Saul of Tarsus by Barbarians, who also said Paul was a God [28.:6], neither claim being true)
[phoneus = nominative masculine singular noun "murderer"]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb Eimi "is"]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article "the" or "this"]
[anthrwpos = nominative masculine singular noun "man"]
Some may claim Saul murdered Christians, but that is for God to judge, for it is God who said ("...no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.[I Jn 3:15])
EXAMPLE TWO:
[Mark. 7:26]"The woman was a Greek...,"[h` de gunh hn Ellhnis]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (The)]
[de. = subordinating conjunction]
[gunh = nominative feminine singular noun (woman)]
[hn = indicative feminine 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (was)]
[Ellhnis = nominative feminine singular noun (Greek]
"The woman" designates particularity; but does not indicate exclusivity. Nor is it indicated she was the only "Greek" woman; thus no article before "Greek." She was a Greek, but not the Greek. The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal.
EXAMPLE THREE:
[Luke. 1:7] Elisabeth was barren,[kathoti hn h` Elisabet steira]
[kathoti = subordinating conjunction (because)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3s form of verb eimi (was)]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article] (the)
[Elisabet. = nominative feminine singular noun](proper name) (Elizabeth)
[steira. = nominative feminine singular noun] (barren)
While it was true, "The" Elizabeth was barren, it is also not true that she was the totality of baren women; but Elizabeth is not identifiably all that is woman and barren. The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal.
EXAMPLE FOUR:
[John. 1:1][and. the Word was God.][kai theos hn 'o logos]
[kai = coordinating conjunction (and)]
[theos = nominative masculine singular noun (god)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular verb (eimi)(was)
['o = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[logos = nominative masculine singular noun (logos)]
As neither noun is defined*, we cannot determine from the grammar, much beyond identifying which nominative is the subject, and which nominative is the predicate. The identification is based upon which nominative has the article; 'o logos being the subject; theos serving as the predicate nominative.
[*Does "theos" reference Jehovah, God, The Father? Or does it reference some quality undetermined by the context, such as "godly?" Is the term representative of identity, or quality?]
If both terms "theos" and "'o logos" were articulated (as 'o theos hn 'o logos) the terms would be convertable, and equal as to exchangability, we could say "the word was the God," equally with "the God was the word."
But, the terms are not equally articulated; They are not defined in this reference, beyond the fact 'o logos was pros ton theon (o`logos hn pros ton theon) in the accusative; in which case both terms are articulated.
There is no indication whatsoever as to determination of "beginning." Is it the beginning "of creation?" Is it the beginning "of the gospel age?" There are many "beginnings" referenced in the new testament, many of which have nothing to do with the beginning of creation; i.e., the beginning of sorrows, the beginning of signs of the endtime, etc.
But Jesus used the same language John used when he said "But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at (the) beginning, because I was with you." [John. 16:4]
Still, trinitarian theologians insist the language of John 1:1 -
"En arxh hn o` logos kai o` logos hn pros ton theon kai theos hn o` logos"
parallels that of Moses in Gen 1:1 -
"en arxh epoihsen o` theos ton ouranon kai thn ghn"
COMPARE:
GENESIS 1:1
"en arxh epoihsen o` theos ton ouranon kai thn ghn
The first speaks of God creating -
JOHN 1:1
"En arxh hn o` logos kai o` logos hn pros ton theon kai theos hn o` logos
the 2nd speaks of logos being.
The two are not parallel accounts. And no ammount of redefining pretense will make them parallel.
Jesus was with the disciples in the same "beginning" of which John speaks in 1:1.
I can take any two nominatives and join them with an equative verb, but without definition, no one can say with any degree of certainty, whether they are speaking of the same thing or not, because they are not defined.
"The glup was bleep" fits the construct if both are ascertained to be Nominatives, but without definition, that is about as far as one can go.
"The logos was God" fits the construct, but without definition, they cannot be made equal simply by assertion.
EXAMPLE FIVE:
[Jn.. 1:40] Andrew was the brother.[Hn Andreas o` adelphos]
[Hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi "was"]
[Andreas = nominative masculine singular noun (proper name)(Andrew)]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[adelphos = nomionative masculine singular noun (brother)]
Andrew was not the only brother in the family, though he was the only brother of Simon; therefore, the term "The brother" could apply equally to both Andrew and Simon; yet andrew was not Simon; nor were they identical, as one was older, the other younger, etc. The terms "The brother" and Andrew are not interchangable, because in the family, Andrew was "a" brother, as also was Simon. The terms are not convertible nor equal.
EXAMPLE SIX:
[John. 18:40] "... Now Barabbas was a robber."[hn de o` Barabbas lhsths]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb (eimi)(was)]
[de. = subordinating conjunction]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[Barabbas = nominative masculine singular noun (proper name)(Barabbas)]
[lhsths = nominative masculine singular noun (robber)]
Barabbas was not the only robber, nor is it demonstrated from this verse, that the only robber was one man named "Barrabas." The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal. Yet they are linked by an "equative" verb.
EXAMPLE SEVEN:
I JOHn 4:16 "God is love"
[o` dnms][theos. n-nm-s][agaph. n-nf-s][estin (eimi) vipa--3s]
[o. = nominative masculine singular definite article](The)]
[theos = nominative masculine singular noun (God)]
[agaph = nominative feminine singular noun (love)]
[estiv = indicative present active form of verb eimi (is)]
Equative verbs were previously taught as "copular," or "copulative" or "copulas;" sometimes "Linking" verbs. It simply means to join or link, whichever term you understand it to be, it offers only one application, and that is to link two nouns in the Nominative case, in some particular order.
"Equative" is a term applied to certain linking or copulative verbs, and that has to do with a subject - predicate nominative constuction that has two nominatives equally qualified to serve as subject, and predicate nominative. That is the source of the term "equative" in its linguistic application.
Suppose a group of carpenters and retired carpenters and ex-carpenters assemble, and begin to define themselves by the following rhetoric;"I am a carpenter. They [u]are[/] carpenters. She is a carpenter. He was a carpenter. They were carpenters."
In the cases of "He was" and "They were" - a statement is still equative in form, even if the things equated in that statement no longer equate at the time of speaking because "equative" refers to the function of the verb, not the truth of the statement. The passing time does not mitigate the force of the verb.
Though the tense changes, the three elements are exactly the same: subject, copula, and subject complement. The copula is no less a copula and no less equative because it relates to the past. All tenses are of the same verb "to be" in this example.
It must be further determined as to which is the subject and which is the predicate. Predicate nominative constructions come in two diverse applications of equative verbs; there is a Subject-predicate nominative example in which one nominal is articulated, and the other is not. The articulated nominal will be the Subject, and the non-articulated will be the Predicate Nominative.
The second application relates to a structure where the subject and predicate are convertible, exchangeable, identifiable as one and the same; i.e. either could be
the subject, and the other would serve as the predicate.
EXAMPLE EIGHT:
Mat 13:38 The field is the world;['o de agros estin 'o kosmos]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)
[de = coordinating conjunction (like "kai" in John 1:1)]
[agros nominative masculine singular noun (field)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular verb form of eimi (is)]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[kosmos = nominative masculine singular noun (world)]
["THE FIELD IS THE WORLD" IS THE SAME AS "THE WORLD IS THE FIELD"]
EXAMPLE NINE:
Jn. 1:4 "the life was the light"
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[zwh = nominative feminine singular noun (life)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (was)]
[to = nominative neuter singular definite article (the)]
[phws = nominative neuter singular noun (light)]
["THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT" IS THE SAME AS "THE LIGHT WAS THE LIFE"]
EXAMPLE TEN:
1 John 3:4 [for. sin is the transgression][kai h` amartia estin h` anomia]
[kai = subordinating conjunction (for)]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[amartia = nominative feminine singular noun (sin)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (is)]
[h`= nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[anomia = nominative feminine singular noun (transgression)]
[THE SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION" IS THE SAME AS "THE TRANSGRESSION WAS THE SIN"]
EXAMPLE ELEVEN:
1 John 5:6 [the. Spirit is truth].[to pneuma estin h` alhtheia]
[to = nominative neuter singular definite article (the)]
[pneuma = nominative neuter ingular noun (spirit)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (is)]
[h` nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[alhtheia = nominative feminine singular noun (truth)]
["the truth is the spirit" is the same as "the spirit is the truth"]
{This is true because God sends HIS own spirit; and God is true [John. 3:33]; therefore, his spirit is truth.}
In these examples [EIGHT. THROUGH ELEVEN] both Nominals are articulate. To use two articulates implies that all of one is all of the other. This cannot mean the same as the case in which all of one is some of the other; or some part thereof.
THAT's the "testimony" part; now for the "definition" and "significance" part.
DEFINITION:
Inconvertible; adj. Not Interchangeable.
Interchange; to Put each In the place of the other, equally; transpose; exchange.
Interchangeable; more than one thing capable of replacing each other.
Equal; convertible, interchangable, sharing equality.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The logos was God. "The Logos" is not interchangeable with "God" because "God" does not have the definite article, while "The Logos" does. They are therefore, not interchangeable. When the logos became flesh, [John. 1:14] God DID NOT.
Not one of the scholars over several centuries have seen the significance of this characteristic of "inconvertible terms," meaning interchangeable, though there are many many scholars who express their belief in this simple fact of inconvertibleness of the terms of John 1:1c. Yet none of the scholars even discuss this aspect of the issue. And that is because it is ASSUMED John was referencing a pre-existant Jesus being equal with God, becoming flesh.
In fact, it was Paul who established the meaning of "the logos of God," and John simply confirms Paul's understanding, which should be of no surprise, as the same Holy Spirit inspired the one as inspired the other.
In 48 a.d.
Paul told us " I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." [Gal. 2:20]
"My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,"[Gal. 4:19]
Then Paul told us "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates?"
In 60 a.d.
Paul tells us he was given a comission by God hHimself, to fully [preach the "logos of God" and then tells us he did so to the whole world, and that this "logos of God" (word of God) is a concept of "Christ in you." Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos [word] of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. [Col. 1:25-27]
So Paul tells us God was in Christ, Christ is in me, the "logos of God" is a concept whereby I am in Christ, Christ is in God, and God becomes "all in all."
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:" [I John 4:2]
AND in His Second Epistle - "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." [II. John 7]
"IS COME" is PERFECT ACTIVE in I John 4:2, and is PRESENT PASSIVE in II John 7. Between Paul's writings and John's verification, every aspect of Jesus in me fulfilling the "logos of God," is covered. And when in 96 a.d., at the close of the Holy Spirit's work of producing a written account, John is inspired to tells us "The logos was personified" i.e., "BECAME FLESH" in the saints of every day, up to and including this very present time.
"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." [Col. 3:11]
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." [I Cor 15:28]
John is describing a personification, not a pre-existent deity becoming flesh. And with God in Christ, Christ in me, God is then "all in all" which is exactly what his whole plan was all about. It will be in its final stage when Jesus returns the reigns of rule over to his Father, is made himself subject to the Father, God will be "all in all."
Understanding the limitation of the application of
"equative" as a linguistic tool rather than as an identifier of meaning in an application of the tool, will make a difference in how it is understood everywhere.
May 9, 2015 19:46:32 #
"
"God" does not have the definite article, while "The Logos" does.
"
DEFINITIVE ARTICLE?
iN Koine Greek??
Bwahahah hahahahah hahahahahah hahahahah hahahahah hahahah hahahaha hahahaha hahahah hhahahah
get outta town
"God" does not have the definite article, while "The Logos" does.
"
DEFINITIVE ARTICLE?
iN Koine Greek??
Bwahahah hahahahah hahahahahah hahahahah hahahahah hahahah hahahaha hahahaha hahahah hhahahah
get outta town
May 9, 2015 19:49:47 #
May 9, 2015 19:53:28 #
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&t=KJV#s=t_conc_998001
See it.
Know it.
Verbs for "was" are IDENTICAL. Nominatives are identical.
yer BUSTED - Dude !!
See it.
Know it.
Verbs for "was" are IDENTICAL. Nominatives are identical.
yer BUSTED - Dude !!
May 9, 2015 19:58:19 #
[Acts. 28:4] ["...this man is a murderer...](Is said about Saul of Tarsus by Barbarians, who also said Paul was a God [28.:6], neither claim being true)
The guy THOUGHT that Paul was a god (actually - thought Paul was Hermes and Barnabus was Zeus)
And YOU thought you were
'hot snot on a telephone pole'
but you're just
'cold buggers on a tooth-pick'
The guy THOUGHT that Paul was a god (actually - thought Paul was Hermes and Barnabus was Zeus)
And YOU thought you were
'hot snot on a telephone pole'
but you're just
'cold buggers on a tooth-pick'
May 9, 2015 20:01:33 #
Your references are erroneous also -- Acts 28 is about Paul on the island of Malta
NOT about when Paul and Barnabus were thought to be immortals
I
will look up the correct references
and post them
NOT about when Paul and Barnabus were thought to be immortals
I
will look up the correct references
and post them
May 9, 2015 20:08:31 #
Act 14:11
And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
Act 14:12
And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
Act 14:13
Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the peopl
Act 14:14
Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
Act 14:15
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Nice try, Theo -- but some people ACTUALLY
READ THINGS.
Go back to the Kingdom Hall and regroup !!
And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
Act 14:12
And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
Act 14:13
Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the peopl
Act 14:14
Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
Act 14:15
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Nice try, Theo -- but some people ACTUALLY
READ THINGS.
Go back to the Kingdom Hall and regroup !!
May 9, 2015 20:21:18 #
Theo
Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida
Quote:
"
[[quote=Theo]"God" does not have the definite article, while "The Logos" does. They are therefore, not interchangeable.
[[quote=Theo]"God" does not have the definite article, while "The Logos" does. They are therefore, not interchangeable.
"God" does not have the definite article, while "The Logos" does."
DEFINITIVE ARTICLE?
iN Koine Greek??
Bwahahah hahahahah hahahahahah hahahahah hahahahah hahahah hahahaha hahahaha hahahah hhahahah
get outta town[/quote]
Why? Because YOU can't detect the difference between "Definite" and "Definitive?"
I don't think so. Let me show you another view...
"Definite"
"Definitive"
See it yet?
May 9, 2015 20:25:42 #
Theo -- lemme tell ya straight out --
You don't have the Bible Knowledge to debate with me.
You don't have the SMARTS to debate with me.
And you don't have the GUTS to debate with me.
You SAVVY, Tonto?
Don't address me any more with yer
JW John 1:1 stuff -
you got it?
You don't have the Bible Knowledge to debate with me.
You don't have the SMARTS to debate with me.
And you don't have the GUTS to debate with me.
You SAVVY, Tonto?
Don't address me any more with yer
JW John 1:1 stuff -
you got it?
May 9, 2015 20:35:02 #
Theo
Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida
Quote:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&t=KJV#s=t_conc_998001
See it.
Know it.
Verbs for "was" are IDENTICAL. Nominatives are identical.
yer BUSTED - Dude !!
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&t=KJV#s=t_conc_998001
See it.
Know it.
Verbs for "was" are IDENTICAL. Nominatives are identical.
yer BUSTED - Dude !!
Get real!
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
and the Word was the God
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
and the Word was a god (Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and the Word was God (Orthodoxy).
For "The Logos" to equal "The Theos" -
All that is The Logos is equal to all that is The Theos.
John did not say any such nonsense. Two heresies of the earliest centuries are represented by manipulating the language the way you did; Arianism, and Sabellianism.
Even the scholars who understood this, still did not see the significance of their own research. And "Scholarship" is the reason for that. The scriptures were written by unlearned and ignorant men, for the most part, Paul and Luke being two acknowledged exceptions; but Luke admits he got his information from other inspired men, and Paul was educated as a Hebrew Scholar; but was inspired to write in the Greek.
And it was Paul who tells us about "The Logos of God" being the name given to a plan in the mind of God.
So get over yourself.
May 9, 2015 20:40:03 #
Theo
Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida
Quote:
Theo -- lemme tell ya straight out --
You don't have the Bible Knowledge to debate with me.
You don't have the SMARTS to debate with me.
And you don't have the GUTS to debate with me.
You SAVVY, Tonto?
Don't address me any more with yer
JW John 1:1 stuff -
you got it?
You don't have the Bible Knowledge to debate with me.
You don't have the SMARTS to debate with me.
And you don't have the GUTS to debate with me.
You SAVVY, Tonto?
Don't address me any more with yer
JW John 1:1 stuff -
you got it?
WoW! A truly modest man.
I did not "address" you "Scout" (tonto's Horse). You "addressed" me.
May 9, 2015 23:45:20 #
[quote=Theo]AN equative verb equates nominals that are in the same case.
A ~Subject - Predicate Nominative~ construction (S-Pn) is a construction where both the subject and the noun in the predicate are nominative; both nominals share equally in qualifying to be the subject, and equally qualify to be the predicate nominative. This "equallity of qualification" requires an "Equative Verb" (EV) to complete the construction.
The EV serves only to obviate the qualification of nominals to serve in a particular capacity in a linguistic application. It has nothing to do with applying some nuance of "equality" applied to the meaning of the nominals under consideration.
EXAMPLE ONE:
[Acts. 28:4] ["...this man is a murderer...](Is said about Saul of Tarsus by Barbarians, who also said Paul was a God [28.:6], neither claim being true)
[phoneus = nominative masculine singular noun "murderer"]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb Eimi "is"]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article "the" or "this"]
[anthrwpos = nominative masculine singular noun "man"]
Some may claim Saul murdered Christians, but that is for God to judge, for it is God who said ("...no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.[I Jn 3:15])
EXAMPLE TWO:
[Mark. 7:26]"The woman was a Greek...,"[h` de gunh hn Ellhnis]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (The)]
[de. = subordinating conjunction]
[gunh = nominative feminine singular noun (woman)]
[hn = indicative feminine 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (was)]
[Ellhnis = nominative feminine singular noun (Greek]
"The woman" designates particularity; but does not indicate exclusivity. Nor is it indicated she was the only "Greek" woman; thus no article before "Greek." She was a Greek, but not the Greek. The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal.
EXAMPLE THREE:
[Luke. 1:7] Elisabeth was barren,[kathoti hn h` Elisabet steira]
[kathoti = subordinating conjunction (because)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3s form of verb eimi (was)]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article] (the)
[Elisabet. = nominative feminine singular noun](proper name) (Elizabeth)
[steira. = nominative feminine singular noun] (barren)
While it was true, "The" Elizabeth was barren, it is also not true that she was the totality of baren women; but Elizabeth is not identifiably all that is woman and barren. The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal.
EXAMPLE FOUR:
[John. 1:1][and. the Word was God.][kai theos hn 'o logos]
[kai = coordinating conjunction (and)]
[theos = nominative masculine singular noun (god)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular verb (eimi)(was)
['o = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[logos = nominative masculine singular noun (logos)]
As neither noun is defined*, we cannot determine from the grammar, much beyond identifying which nominative is the subject, and which nominative is the predicate. The identification is based upon which nominative has the article; 'o logos being the subject; theos serving as the predicate nominative.
[*Does "theos" reference Jehovah, God, The Father? Or does it reference some quality undetermined by the context, such as "godly?" Is the term representative of identity, or quality?]
If both terms "theos" and "'o logos" were articulated (as 'o theos hn 'o logos) the terms would be convertable, and equal as to exchangability, we could say "the word was the God," equally with "the God was the word."
But, the terms are not equally articulated; They are not defined in this reference, beyond the fact 'o logos was pros ton theon (o`logos hn pros ton theon) in the accusative; in which case both terms are articulated.
There is no indication whatsoever as to determination of "beginning." Is it the beginning "of creation?" Is it the beginning "of the gospel age?" There are many "beginnings" referenced in the new testament, many of which have nothing to do with the beginning of creation; i.e., the beginning of sorrows, the beginning of signs of the endtime, etc.
But Jesus used the same language John used when he said "But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at (the) beginning, because I was with you." [John. 16:4]
Still, trinitarian theologians insist the language of John 1:1 -
"En arxh hn o` logos kai o` logos hn pros ton theon kai theos hn o` logos"
parallels that of Moses in Gen 1:1 -
"en arxh epoihsen o` theos ton ouranon kai thn ghn"
COMPARE:
GENESIS 1:1
"en arxh epoihsen o` theos ton ouranon kai thn ghn
The first speaks of God creating -
JOHN 1:1
"En arxh hn o` logos kai o` logos hn pros ton theon kai theos hn o` logos
the 2nd speaks of logos being.
The two are not parallel accounts. And no ammount of redefining pretense will make them parallel.
Jesus was with the disciples in the same "beginning" of which John speaks in 1:1.
I can take any two nominatives and join them with an equative verb, but without definition, no one can say with any degree of certainty, whether they are speaking of the same thing or not, because they are not defined.
"The glup was bleep" fits the construct if both are ascertained to be Nominatives, but without definition, that is about as far as one can go.
"The logos was God" fits the construct, but without definition, they cannot be made equal simply by assertion.
EXAMPLE FIVE:
[Jn.. 1:40] Andrew was the brother.[Hn Andreas o` adelphos]
[Hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi "was"]
[Andreas = nominative masculine singular noun (proper name)(Andrew)]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[adelphos = nomionative masculine singular noun (brother)]
Andrew was not the only brother in the family, though he was the only brother of Simon; therefore, the term "The brother" could apply equally to both Andrew and Simon; yet andrew was not Simon; nor were they identical, as one was older, the other younger, etc. The terms "The brother" and Andrew are not interchangable, because in the family, Andrew was "a" brother, as also was Simon. The terms are not convertible nor equal.
EXAMPLE SIX:
[John. 18:40] "... Now Barabbas was a robber."[hn de o` Barabbas lhsths]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb (eimi)(was)]
[de. = subordinating conjunction]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[Barabbas = nominative masculine singular noun (proper name)(Barabbas)]
[lhsths = nominative masculine singular noun (robber)]
Barabbas was not the only robber, nor is it demonstrated from this verse, that the only robber was one man named "Barrabas." The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal. Yet they are linked by an "equative" verb.
EXAMPLE SEVEN:
I JOHn 4:16 "God is love"
[o` dnms][theos. n-nm-s][agaph. n-nf-s][estin (eimi) vipa--3s]
[o. = nominative masculine singular definite article](The)]
[theos = nominative masculine singular noun (God)]
[agaph = nominative feminine singular noun (love)]
[estiv = indicative present active form of verb eimi (is)]
Equative verbs were previously taught as "copular," or "copulative" or "copulas;" sometimes "Linking" verbs. It simply means to join or link, whichever term you understand it to be, it offers only one application, and that is to link two nouns in the Nominative case, in some particular order.
"Equative" is a term applied to certain linking or copulative verbs, and that has to do with a subject - predicate nominative constuction that has two nominatives equally qualified to serve as subject, and predicate nominative. That is the source of the term "equative" in its linguistic application.
Suppose a group of carpenters and retired carpenters and ex-carpenters assemble, and begin to define themselves by the following rhetoric;"I am a carpenter. They [u]are[/] carpenters. She is a carpenter. He was a carpenter. They were carpenters."
In the cases of "He was" and "They were" - a statement is still equative in form, even if the things equated in that statement no longer equate at the time of speaking because "equative" refers to the function of the verb, not the truth of the statement. The passing time does not mitigate the force of the verb.
Though the tense changes, the three elements are exactly the same: subject, copula, and subject complement. The copula is no less a copula and no less equative because it relates to the past. All tenses are of the same verb "to be" in this example.
It must be further determined as to which is the subject and which is the predicate. Predicate nominative constructions come in two diverse applications of equative verbs; there is a Subject-predicate nominative example in which one nominal is articulated, and the other is not. The articulated nominal will be the Subject, and the non-articulated will be the Predicate Nominative.
The second application relates to a structure where the subject and predicate are convertible, exchangeable, identifiable as one and the same; i.e. either could be
the subject, and the other would serve as the predicate.
EXAMPLE EIGHT:
Mat 13:38 The field is the world;['o de agros estin 'o kosmos]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)
[de = coordinating conjunction (like "kai" in John 1:1)]
[agros nominative masculine singular noun (field)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular verb form of eimi (is)]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[kosmos = nominative masculine singular noun (world)]
["THE FIELD IS THE WORLD" IS THE SAME AS "THE WORLD IS THE FIELD"]
EXAMPLE NINE:
Jn. 1:4 "the life was the light"
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[zwh = nominative feminine singular noun (life)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (was)]
[to = nominative neuter singular definite article (the)]
[phws = nominative neuter singular noun (light)]
["THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT" IS THE SAME AS "THE LIGHT WAS THE LIFE"]
EXAMPLE TEN:
1 John 3:4 [for. sin is the transgression][kai h` amartia estin h` anomia]
[kai = subordinating conjunction (for)]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[amartia = nominative feminine singular noun (sin)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (is)]
[h`= nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[anomia = nominative feminine singular noun (transgression)]
[THE SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION" IS THE SAME AS "THE TRANSGRESSION WAS THE SIN"]
EXAMPLE ELEVEN:
1 John 5:6 [the. Spirit is truth].[to pneuma estin h` alhtheia]
[to = nominative neuter singular definite article (the)]
[pneuma = nominative neuter ingular noun (spirit)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (is)]
[h` nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[alhtheia = nominative feminine singular noun (truth)]
["the truth is the spirit" is the same as "the spirit is the truth"]
{This is true because God sends HIS own spirit; and God is true [John. 3:33]; therefore, his spirit is truth.}
In these examples [EIGHT. THROUGH ELEVEN] both Nominals are articulate. To use two articulates implies that all of one is all of the other. This cannot mean the same as the case in which all of one is some of the other; or some part thereof.
THAT's the "testimony" part; now for the "definition" and "significance" part.
DEFINITION:
Inconvertible; adj. Not Interchangeable.
Interchange; to Put each In the place of the other, equally; transpose; exchange.
Interchangeable; more than one thing capable of replacing each other.
Equal; convertible, interchangable, sharing equality.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The logos was God. "The Logos" is not interchangeable with "God" because "God" does not have the definite article, while "The Logos" does. They are therefore, not interchangeable. When the logos became flesh, [John. 1:14] God DID NOT.
Not one of the scholars over several centuries have seen the significance of this characteristic of "inconvertible terms," meaning interchangeable, though there are many many scholars who express their belief in this simple fact of inconvertibleness of the terms of John 1:1c. Yet none of the scholars even discuss this aspect of the issue. And that is because it is ASSUMED John was referencing a pre-existant Jesus being equal with God, becoming flesh.
In fact, it was Paul who established the meaning of "the logos of God," and John simply confirms Paul's understanding, which should be of no surprise, as the same Holy Spirit inspired the one as inspired the other.
In 48 a.d.
Paul told us " I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." [Gal. 2:20]
"My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,"[Gal. 4:19]
Then Paul told us "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates?"
In 60 a.d.
Paul tells us he was given a comission by God hHimself, to fully [preach the "logos of God" and then tells us he did so to the whole world, and that this "logos of God" (word of God) is a concept of "Christ in you." Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos [word] of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. [Col. 1:25-27]
So Paul tells us God was in Christ, Christ is in me, the "logos of God" is a concept whereby I am in Christ, Christ is in God, and God becomes "all in all."
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:" [I John 4:2]
AND in His Second Epistle - "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." [II. John 7]
"IS COME" is PERFECT ACTIVE in I John 4:2, and is PRESENT PASSIVE in II John 7. Between Paul's writings and John's verification, every aspect of Jesus in me fulfilling the "logos of God," is covered. And when in 96 a.d., at the close of the Holy Spirit's work of producing a written account, John is inspired to tells us "The logos was personified" i.e., "BECAME FLESH" in the saints of every day, up to and including this very present time.
"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." [Col. 3:11]
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." [I Cor 15:28]
John is describing a personification, not a pre-existent deity becoming flesh. And with God in Christ, Christ in me, God is then "all in all" which is exactly what his whole plan was all about. It will be in its final stage when Jesus returns the reigns of rule over to his Father, is made himself subject to the Father, God will be "all in all."
Understanding the limitation of the application of
"equative" as a linguistic tool rather than as an identifier of meaning in an application of the tool, will make a difference in how it is understood everywhere.[/quote]
How about those Mets?
A ~Subject - Predicate Nominative~ construction (S-Pn) is a construction where both the subject and the noun in the predicate are nominative; both nominals share equally in qualifying to be the subject, and equally qualify to be the predicate nominative. This "equallity of qualification" requires an "Equative Verb" (EV) to complete the construction.
The EV serves only to obviate the qualification of nominals to serve in a particular capacity in a linguistic application. It has nothing to do with applying some nuance of "equality" applied to the meaning of the nominals under consideration.
EXAMPLE ONE:
[Acts. 28:4] ["...this man is a murderer...](Is said about Saul of Tarsus by Barbarians, who also said Paul was a God [28.:6], neither claim being true)
[phoneus = nominative masculine singular noun "murderer"]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb Eimi "is"]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article "the" or "this"]
[anthrwpos = nominative masculine singular noun "man"]
Some may claim Saul murdered Christians, but that is for God to judge, for it is God who said ("...no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.[I Jn 3:15])
EXAMPLE TWO:
[Mark. 7:26]"The woman was a Greek...,"[h` de gunh hn Ellhnis]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (The)]
[de. = subordinating conjunction]
[gunh = nominative feminine singular noun (woman)]
[hn = indicative feminine 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (was)]
[Ellhnis = nominative feminine singular noun (Greek]
"The woman" designates particularity; but does not indicate exclusivity. Nor is it indicated she was the only "Greek" woman; thus no article before "Greek." She was a Greek, but not the Greek. The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal.
EXAMPLE THREE:
[Luke. 1:7] Elisabeth was barren,[kathoti hn h` Elisabet steira]
[kathoti = subordinating conjunction (because)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3s form of verb eimi (was)]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article] (the)
[Elisabet. = nominative feminine singular noun](proper name) (Elizabeth)
[steira. = nominative feminine singular noun] (barren)
While it was true, "The" Elizabeth was barren, it is also not true that she was the totality of baren women; but Elizabeth is not identifiably all that is woman and barren. The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal.
EXAMPLE FOUR:
[John. 1:1][and. the Word was God.][kai theos hn 'o logos]
[kai = coordinating conjunction (and)]
[theos = nominative masculine singular noun (god)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular verb (eimi)(was)
['o = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[logos = nominative masculine singular noun (logos)]
As neither noun is defined*, we cannot determine from the grammar, much beyond identifying which nominative is the subject, and which nominative is the predicate. The identification is based upon which nominative has the article; 'o logos being the subject; theos serving as the predicate nominative.
[*Does "theos" reference Jehovah, God, The Father? Or does it reference some quality undetermined by the context, such as "godly?" Is the term representative of identity, or quality?]
If both terms "theos" and "'o logos" were articulated (as 'o theos hn 'o logos) the terms would be convertable, and equal as to exchangability, we could say "the word was the God," equally with "the God was the word."
But, the terms are not equally articulated; They are not defined in this reference, beyond the fact 'o logos was pros ton theon (o`logos hn pros ton theon) in the accusative; in which case both terms are articulated.
There is no indication whatsoever as to determination of "beginning." Is it the beginning "of creation?" Is it the beginning "of the gospel age?" There are many "beginnings" referenced in the new testament, many of which have nothing to do with the beginning of creation; i.e., the beginning of sorrows, the beginning of signs of the endtime, etc.
But Jesus used the same language John used when he said "But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at (the) beginning, because I was with you." [John. 16:4]
Still, trinitarian theologians insist the language of John 1:1 -
"En arxh hn o` logos kai o` logos hn pros ton theon kai theos hn o` logos"
parallels that of Moses in Gen 1:1 -
"en arxh epoihsen o` theos ton ouranon kai thn ghn"
COMPARE:
GENESIS 1:1
"en arxh epoihsen o` theos ton ouranon kai thn ghn
The first speaks of God creating -
JOHN 1:1
"En arxh hn o` logos kai o` logos hn pros ton theon kai theos hn o` logos
the 2nd speaks of logos being.
The two are not parallel accounts. And no ammount of redefining pretense will make them parallel.
Jesus was with the disciples in the same "beginning" of which John speaks in 1:1.
I can take any two nominatives and join them with an equative verb, but without definition, no one can say with any degree of certainty, whether they are speaking of the same thing or not, because they are not defined.
"The glup was bleep" fits the construct if both are ascertained to be Nominatives, but without definition, that is about as far as one can go.
"The logos was God" fits the construct, but without definition, they cannot be made equal simply by assertion.
EXAMPLE FIVE:
[Jn.. 1:40] Andrew was the brother.[Hn Andreas o` adelphos]
[Hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi "was"]
[Andreas = nominative masculine singular noun (proper name)(Andrew)]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[adelphos = nomionative masculine singular noun (brother)]
Andrew was not the only brother in the family, though he was the only brother of Simon; therefore, the term "The brother" could apply equally to both Andrew and Simon; yet andrew was not Simon; nor were they identical, as one was older, the other younger, etc. The terms "The brother" and Andrew are not interchangable, because in the family, Andrew was "a" brother, as also was Simon. The terms are not convertible nor equal.
EXAMPLE SIX:
[John. 18:40] "... Now Barabbas was a robber."[hn de o` Barabbas lhsths]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb (eimi)(was)]
[de. = subordinating conjunction]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[Barabbas = nominative masculine singular noun (proper name)(Barabbas)]
[lhsths = nominative masculine singular noun (robber)]
Barabbas was not the only robber, nor is it demonstrated from this verse, that the only robber was one man named "Barrabas." The terms are not interchangable, convertible, nor equal. Yet they are linked by an "equative" verb.
EXAMPLE SEVEN:
I JOHn 4:16 "God is love"
[o` dnms][theos. n-nm-s][agaph. n-nf-s][estin (eimi) vipa--3s]
[o. = nominative masculine singular definite article](The)]
[theos = nominative masculine singular noun (God)]
[agaph = nominative feminine singular noun (love)]
[estiv = indicative present active form of verb eimi (is)]
Equative verbs were previously taught as "copular," or "copulative" or "copulas;" sometimes "Linking" verbs. It simply means to join or link, whichever term you understand it to be, it offers only one application, and that is to link two nouns in the Nominative case, in some particular order.
"Equative" is a term applied to certain linking or copulative verbs, and that has to do with a subject - predicate nominative constuction that has two nominatives equally qualified to serve as subject, and predicate nominative. That is the source of the term "equative" in its linguistic application.
Suppose a group of carpenters and retired carpenters and ex-carpenters assemble, and begin to define themselves by the following rhetoric;"I am a carpenter. They [u]are[/] carpenters. She is a carpenter. He was a carpenter. They were carpenters."
In the cases of "He was" and "They were" - a statement is still equative in form, even if the things equated in that statement no longer equate at the time of speaking because "equative" refers to the function of the verb, not the truth of the statement. The passing time does not mitigate the force of the verb.
Though the tense changes, the three elements are exactly the same: subject, copula, and subject complement. The copula is no less a copula and no less equative because it relates to the past. All tenses are of the same verb "to be" in this example.
It must be further determined as to which is the subject and which is the predicate. Predicate nominative constructions come in two diverse applications of equative verbs; there is a Subject-predicate nominative example in which one nominal is articulated, and the other is not. The articulated nominal will be the Subject, and the non-articulated will be the Predicate Nominative.
The second application relates to a structure where the subject and predicate are convertible, exchangeable, identifiable as one and the same; i.e. either could be
the subject, and the other would serve as the predicate.
EXAMPLE EIGHT:
Mat 13:38 The field is the world;['o de agros estin 'o kosmos]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)
[de = coordinating conjunction (like "kai" in John 1:1)]
[agros nominative masculine singular noun (field)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular verb form of eimi (is)]
[o` = nominative masculine singular definite article (the)]
[kosmos = nominative masculine singular noun (world)]
["THE FIELD IS THE WORLD" IS THE SAME AS "THE WORLD IS THE FIELD"]
EXAMPLE NINE:
Jn. 1:4 "the life was the light"
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[zwh = nominative feminine singular noun (life)]
[hn = indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (was)]
[to = nominative neuter singular definite article (the)]
[phws = nominative neuter singular noun (light)]
["THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT" IS THE SAME AS "THE LIGHT WAS THE LIFE"]
EXAMPLE TEN:
1 John 3:4 [for. sin is the transgression][kai h` amartia estin h` anomia]
[kai = subordinating conjunction (for)]
[h` = nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[amartia = nominative feminine singular noun (sin)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (is)]
[h`= nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[anomia = nominative feminine singular noun (transgression)]
[THE SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION" IS THE SAME AS "THE TRANSGRESSION WAS THE SIN"]
EXAMPLE ELEVEN:
1 John 5:6 [the. Spirit is truth].[to pneuma estin h` alhtheia]
[to = nominative neuter singular definite article (the)]
[pneuma = nominative neuter ingular noun (spirit)]
[estin = indicative present active 3rd person singular form of verb eimi (is)]
[h` nominative feminine singular definite article (the)]
[alhtheia = nominative feminine singular noun (truth)]
["the truth is the spirit" is the same as "the spirit is the truth"]
{This is true because God sends HIS own spirit; and God is true [John. 3:33]; therefore, his spirit is truth.}
In these examples [EIGHT. THROUGH ELEVEN] both Nominals are articulate. To use two articulates implies that all of one is all of the other. This cannot mean the same as the case in which all of one is some of the other; or some part thereof.
THAT's the "testimony" part; now for the "definition" and "significance" part.
DEFINITION:
Inconvertible; adj. Not Interchangeable.
Interchange; to Put each In the place of the other, equally; transpose; exchange.
Interchangeable; more than one thing capable of replacing each other.
Equal; convertible, interchangable, sharing equality.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The logos was God. "The Logos" is not interchangeable with "God" because "God" does not have the definite article, while "The Logos" does. They are therefore, not interchangeable. When the logos became flesh, [John. 1:14] God DID NOT.
Not one of the scholars over several centuries have seen the significance of this characteristic of "inconvertible terms," meaning interchangeable, though there are many many scholars who express their belief in this simple fact of inconvertibleness of the terms of John 1:1c. Yet none of the scholars even discuss this aspect of the issue. And that is because it is ASSUMED John was referencing a pre-existant Jesus being equal with God, becoming flesh.
In fact, it was Paul who established the meaning of "the logos of God," and John simply confirms Paul's understanding, which should be of no surprise, as the same Holy Spirit inspired the one as inspired the other.
In 48 a.d.
Paul told us " I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." [Gal. 2:20]
"My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,"[Gal. 4:19]
Then Paul told us "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates?"
In 60 a.d.
Paul tells us he was given a comission by God hHimself, to fully [preach the "logos of God" and then tells us he did so to the whole world, and that this "logos of God" (word of God) is a concept of "Christ in you." Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos [word] of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. [Col. 1:25-27]
So Paul tells us God was in Christ, Christ is in me, the "logos of God" is a concept whereby I am in Christ, Christ is in God, and God becomes "all in all."
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:" [I John 4:2]
AND in His Second Epistle - "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." [II. John 7]
"IS COME" is PERFECT ACTIVE in I John 4:2, and is PRESENT PASSIVE in II John 7. Between Paul's writings and John's verification, every aspect of Jesus in me fulfilling the "logos of God," is covered. And when in 96 a.d., at the close of the Holy Spirit's work of producing a written account, John is inspired to tells us "The logos was personified" i.e., "BECAME FLESH" in the saints of every day, up to and including this very present time.
"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." [Col. 3:11]
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." [I Cor 15:28]
John is describing a personification, not a pre-existent deity becoming flesh. And with God in Christ, Christ in me, God is then "all in all" which is exactly what his whole plan was all about. It will be in its final stage when Jesus returns the reigns of rule over to his Father, is made himself subject to the Father, God will be "all in all."
Understanding the limitation of the application of
"equative" as a linguistic tool rather than as an identifier of meaning in an application of the tool, will make a difference in how it is understood everywhere.[/quote]
How about those Mets?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.