# Need Greek help for defense of the Trinity...



## jd.morrison (Sep 28, 2009)

I am in a debate with a high school kid about the Trinity. This is what he has stated. My understanding of Greek is really non-existent at the present moment. Can anybody offer up some help with addressing what he has stated.



Anti-Trinitarian States: said:


> The Bible has plenty of verses that show Jesus as a distinct, seperate, and subordinate being, I won't list them here. Concerning John 1:1-5 proving Jesus is God is based on mistranslation.
> "The Word was with God." (a person ca be with themsleves?)
> When it says that the Word was God the word "god" is a different word than the word "god" earlier in... Read More the verse. The first word "god" or theos, has an article, "TON theos" (the God) whereas the second theos does not (god). Koine Greek has no indefinite article (like "a" or "an") so an indifinte article can be implied depending on context. In this verse the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun (theos) cannot be regarded as definite. So, the verse can more approprtiately be translated as "The Word was a god." as some Bibles read.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 28, 2009)

This is a classic Jehovah Witness tactic that has no basis in the Greek text. Greek often omits its article, and that does not mean that the word is then indefinite ("a" something). I'm not in my office, and won't be until Wednesday, but maybe someone else can find materials on this. I want to say Warfield has an excellent article on this issue.

Can anyone else provide Joshua with a reference or other article on point?

---Edit---

Ok, I found an article at Alpha Omega Ministries that quotes the Warfield article "_The Person and Work of Christ_" and even more important articles by AT Robertson (one of the most renowned Greek scholars of all time):

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html


----------



## GD (Sep 29, 2009)

J.D.,

Here’s DTS professor W. Hall Harris’s  exegetical outline  of John 1:1-18. 

I’ll also recommend Komoszewski and Bowman’s _Putting Jesus in His Place_. It’s the best print resource for the lay reader I’ve seen on this and related topics, and it’s also apparently now on Kindle.

Best wishes on your upcoming conversation...


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Sep 29, 2009)

Well, I can guarantee you that he's copying and pasting his argument, so he probably won't listen to anything you say. Someone who takes the time to write this:



> Koine Greek has no indefinite article (like "a" or "an") so an indifinte article can be implied depending on context. In this verse the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun (theos) cannot be regarded as definite.



Probably wouldn't type this:



> a person ca be with themsleves?



But I could be wrong


----------



## jason d (Sep 29, 2009)

Here is some audio of my pastor going pretty in-depth into the Greek on this because many attacks from cults come up about John 1:1: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SJCC-GospelOfJohn/~5/_NBm4VJThpM/01_John_1_1.mp3

(source: Sovereign Joy Community Church | Sermon Podcast)


----------



## Archlute (Sep 29, 2009)

I believe that Daniel Wallace also discusses this at length in his grammar.


----------



## JoelRadford (Sep 29, 2009)

Wallace is excellent - cut and paste from his Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics (sorry the Greek is mangled because of font problems):



> a. Is Qeo,j in John 1:1c Indefinite?
> 
> If qeo,j were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.
> 
> ...



I love that at the end! The way the Greek is constructed shows that Jesus is God, but not God the Father. If it had the definite article it would show that he is the exact same as the Father, which he is not. Pure gold!


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2009)

> The most likely candidate for qeo,j is qualitative...
> 
> Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ.



I disagree. Leon Morris is surely correct when he says "John is not merely saying that there is something divine about Jesus. He is affirming that He is God, and doing so emphatically as we see from the word order in the Greek." (Comm. in loc.)

The syntax clearly indicates that "God was the Word" is not possible, while still affirming a definite identification in "the Word was God." Reading "the Father" into "God" in 1:1c is arbitrary. "God" has a strong monotheistic referent in John and Jesus' claim to be "God" is the ultimate challenge to Judaism's rejection of His Messiahship.


----------

