John 1:1,2 (MMcelhaney)

MMcelhaney has responded to some of the things written on this site in his blogsite at:

http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2008/09/bible-basics-trinity-part-2-redux.html

In this post, I will address what he stated concerning the post on this site at:

http://notrinity.blogspot.com/2008/08/john-112-word-was-mighty.html

MMcelhaney states that I said that TON THEON and THEOS in John 1:1,2 are two different words. I never said that they are two different words, but, at least as far as spelling, they are two different words. However, I did not address them as two different words, since THEON is usually considered but a form of THEOS and therefore thought of as the same word. What I addressed was the fact that TON THEON applied to the God of Jesus does not carry the same meaning or application as THEOS applied to the Word of God. Even most trinitarians will admit there is a difference, else they would have Jesus as his own Father whom he was with.

Trinitarians, however, have to add to and read into what John said the thought that TON THEON refers to their alleged first person of the trinity, while "the Logos was theos," refers to their alleged second person of the trinity, and thus have it read, in effect, "In the beginning was the second person of the trinity, and the second person of the trinity was with the first person of the trinity, and the second person of the trinity was with the qualities of first person of the trinity. In other words, they do not wish it to be thought of as "the second person of the trinity was the first person of the trinity." Thus, some argue that THEOS applied to Logos is a qualitative usage, and from that they would like for it to be understood that THEOS applied to the trinity means that Jesus had all the qualities of the TON THEON whom he was with. (Well, not quite all, they would deny that Jesus is the Father of Jesus, thus they would claim that THEOS would mean all the qualities that would make one God, which, they evidently assume, would not include the quality of being "God the Father". ) In effect, however, this ends up being a circular arugment for the trinity, saying, since we believe that THEOS applied to the LOGOS means that the LOGOS "was" all of the qualities of TON THEON whom he was with, which we believe because we believe that Jesus was God Almighty, then because of this, John 1:1,2 proves that Jesus is God Almighty.

The quality of being THEOS, as far as the Biblical tradition, is that of special power, strength, might. This is the basic meaning of the Hebrew word "EL," and all its forms, which is why its being used of another than Yahweh does not mean that such usage is denoting Yahweh. Only as applied to Yahweh, however, does take on the meaning of the Supreme Might, the Supreme Being. Jesus definitely excludes himself from being the only true God (Supreme Being) whom he was with, thus any application of THEOS to Jesus would have to be in the general sense of the quality of being mighty, or of being a mighty one.

It is claimed that the scriptures cited wherein the words for "God" are rendered in the KJV by words such as mighty, strong, etc. -- (Geenesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding) -- cannot be applied to Jesus because "no man other than Jesus has ever had the divine name applied to Himself of claimed for by Him." In reality, no where in the Bible does Jesus claim the name of his God and Father, nor does anyone else claim the name of Jesus' God and Father for Jesus. It is only as man reads such an idea into the scriptures that such a claim be made, which, in reality is the claim of uninspired men, not of Jesus, nor of any Bible writer. Since it is something has to be assumed and read into the scriptures, then this likewise is a circular argument.

John 8:58 is often cited as proof that Jesus claimed the holy name for himself, but in reality there is nothing there about a name at all. The idea has to be added to, and read into, the scripture.
http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html
http://reslight.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/i-am-in-john-858/
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=304.0
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=449.0

Laying aside the imaginative suppositions that man would read into the scriptures, I have never found any place in the Bible where the holy name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is applied to anyone other than the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, except perhaps representatively as an angel of Yahweh might speak for, act for, and thus be addressed as though the angel were Yahweh. (Similar to an interpreter in a courtroom.) This does not mean that an angel of Yahweh, who spoke and acted for Yahweh, is Yahweh who sent the angel.* Jesus claimed to have been sent by Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the same as Moses was sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), as well as did all of the Bible writers. Jesus never claimed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who sent him. -- Exodus 3:15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 6:1; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13,22; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.

*http://godandson.reslight.net/aoy.html

Since, in reality, the holy name of the God and Father of Jesus is never applied to Jesus, and since Jesus is definitely shown in the Bible not to be the only true God that Jesus was with. (John 1:1,2; 17:1,3,5), then the most direct way of applying the meaning of THEOS to the LOGOS is that of might, strength, power, "the Word was mighty," in keeping with the Biblical usage.

This is in harmony with what Jesus said in John 17:3,5, where he was speaks of a glory that he had with the only true God before the world of mankind was made. The glory "was" -- past tense -- his, but he did not have that glory at the time that he prayed the prayer of John 17, else why would he ask for that glory? That glory was a celestial (heavenly) glory. (1 Corinthians 15:40) At the time that Jesus said the words of John 17, he had the glory of the terrestrial, earthly, not the celestial, heavenly. Jesus, being a sinless human being, was crowned with the full glory of a man, a little lower than the angels. (Romans 3:23; Hebrews 2:9) It was this crown of human glory, given to Jesus by God through a special preparation of Jesus' body (Hebrews 10:5), that the writer John wrote of in John 1:14.

See also:
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=168.0
http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html
http://reslight.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/i-am-in-john-858/
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=304.0
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=449.0
http://godandson.reslight.net/john-1.html

Ronald R.