Why did Thomas say "My Lord and my God" at John 20:28?

The context of John 20 (indeed, the context and testimony of the entire Bible) does NOT confirm the trinitarian belief that the Messiah is equally God.

Even the TRINTIARIAN NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son OF God, [NOT GOD] so that the readers may believe in him.”

The context of John 20:24, 25, and 29 shows that Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. Jesus’ statements before and after Thomas’ exclamation (“my Lord and my God!”) show not only that Jesus wanted Thomas to believe that he had been resurrected to life but that he could not possibly be God.

Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same person you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (NOT, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God”).

Notice that the reason given for Thomas to “be believing” is that he can see Jesus’ hands and their wounds. Likewise, after Thomas says “My Lord and my God,” Jesus reaffirms that Thomas now believes (as did the other disciples after seeing - Jn.20:20) that Jesus has been resurrected (NOT that he is God) “because you have seen me” (:29)

John himself has made it manifestly clear that “no one [no human] has ever seen God” - 1 John 4:12, RSV.

If Thomas' statement truly meant that he believed that Jesus was God, surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t). So how does John summarize this incident? - “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is THE CHRIST, the Son OF God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

This may be, then, one of those places where the idioms of an ancient language are not completely understood by modern translators.

As the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p. 25, puts it:

"And it is not certain that even the words Thomas addressed to Jesus (Jn. 20:28) meant what they suggest in the English Version." - (Britannica article by Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., D.D. Dunn Professor of New Testament, Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge.)

For much more, see:

What did Thomas mean when he said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God”? (Insight-2 pp. 52-72; Watchtower Online Library)

Three verses after the account about Thomas, John explained that he wrote so that people “may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God”—not that he is God. (g05 4/22 pp. 8-9; Watchtower Online Library)

Does Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God? (rs p. 209-p. 220; Watchtower Online Library)

John 20:28 "My God" (Defending the NWT)

MY GOD (Examining the Trinity)

Why did the apostle Thomas exclaim "My Lord and my God!" at John 20:28? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

John 20:28 - Is Jesus Given the Title 'ho theos'? (Bible Translation and Study)
(Scroll down to 3rd Scriptural Heading)

Exposing the False Reasoning Behind Trinity Proof Texts (Examining the Trinity)

VIDEO: After Tornado, Kingdom Halls Being Built To Withstand 250 M.P.H. Wind Speeds

(Title is in Español, but the Video is in English)

Does Col. 1:19 Prove That Jesus is God? (Fullness)

Concerning Col. 1:19, even certain trinitarians admit that without the word "the", the fullness of God's own being is ambiguous here. Yet the NWT is not the only translation to do this. The very trinitarian KJV; JB; NJB; Douay; NAB (`70); MKJV (Green); Lattimore; and Webster's *ALSO* omit 'the' before 'fullness' in Col. 1:19.
--------------------------------------…

Besides, when Paul says: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him” (Col 1:19), this means that all fullness dwells in Christ because it “pleased the Father” (KJ, Dy), because it was “by God’s own choice.” (NE) So the fullness of “divinity” that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such “fullness” does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being “seated at the right hand of God.”—Col 3:1. - http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001201?q=context+Colossians+2%3A9&p=par

Also, the trinitarian argument that Col. 1:19 proves that Jesus is God overlooks the common understanding of "fulness of ..." and "filled with ..." by those who used those common phrases in New Testament times. For example, the person who became "filled with Holy Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) was greatly influenced by that spirit, but he certainly did not become the Holy Spirit.

And having "the fulness" of someone or something could similarly mean being greatly influenced by that person or thing. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says:

"Just as a person can be full of pain, joy, love, and virtue, he can also be said to be filled with God ..., i.e. possessed and inspired by God." - Vol. 1, p. 734.

Surely we wouldn't expect anyone who is "filled with" God or who receives the "fulness of" God to actually *be* God. Nor would we expect anyone who has the "fulness of" Christ to actually *be* Christ. In fact, it clearly shows that he is NOT the person with whom he is "filled"!

Also see related article:

Col. 2:9 - "Fulness of Deity" (Examining the Trinity) 

Windows and Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses

Some opposers have claimed that all Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses do not have windows and insinuate that this is a result of a deliberate design in order to hide nefarious activities. This could not be farther from the truth!

First, the claim that all Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses do not have windows is simply not true. While it is true that some Kingdom Halls do not have windows because of cost and for the sake of security, many Kingdom Halls do have windows. Generally, a Kingdom Hall is built without windows in areas which tend toward hate crimes and vandalism against houses of worship.

Also consider: If Jehovah's Witnesses really had so many things to hide, then why do they continually attempt to invite interested persons to attend meetings conducted inside Kingdom Halls? Their book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom correctly notes: "Jehovah's Witnesses are in no sense a secret society. Their Bible-based beliefs are fully explained in publications that are available to anyone. Additionally, they put forth special effort to invite the public to attend meetings to see and hear for themselves what takes place." 

Jehovah's Witnesses invite all interested ones to attend meetings with them at their Kingdom Halls. Just contact your local Kingdom Hall for times.

From the Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site:

"Have you ever been curious about what goes on inside the houses of worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

"You don’t need to make a hole in the wall to find out about our services. All meetings are open to the public, and visitors are welcome.

"Usually a Kingdom Hall is a modest structure that has an auditorium with chairs for the audience, a speaker’s platform, a lectern, a library, and an area where members can request or pick up literature for Bible study.

"You won't see religious symbols such as crosses or images in a Kingdom Hall. Why not? We follow the Bible’s command: “Guard yourselves from idols.” So we don’t use religious images in our worship—1 John 5:21.

"We do not pass collection plates or practice tithing. For any who may wish to contribute, small donation boxes are set up near the rear of the auditorium.—2 Corinthians 9:7.

"We usually hold services two times a week, and most of the programs involve audience participation similar to a classroom discussion. Worship starts and ends with prayer, and services normally include singing. All services focus on reading and discussing the Bible and seeing how to apply it in one’s life. Those in attendance—even the very young—are encouraged to read the verses being discussed in their own copy of the Bible." (Read the Full Article.)

For more, see:

Kingdom Hall - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Generally Meet on Sundays?

Before addressing why the Public Meeting and Watchtower Studies are often held on Sundays, let's first address why Sunday came to be the principal day of worship for much of Christendom and then contrast this with Jehovah's Witnesses' pattern of worship. 

How did Sunday come to be the principal day of worship for much of Christendom?

Nowhere does the Bible say that Christian meetings were to be held on Sunday or any other particular day of the week. So, then, why do many professed Christians observe Sunday as a holy day? The custom of worshipping on Sunday arose after the Bible was completed and a variety of beliefs and traditions not based on the Bible had begun to appear:

“The retention of the old Pagan name of ‘Dies Solis,’ or ‘Sunday,’ for the weekly Christian festival, is, in great measure, owing to the union of Pagan and [so-called] Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine [in an edict in 321 C.E.] to his subjects, Pagan and Christian alike, as the ‘venerable day of the Sun.’ . . . It was his mode of harmonizing the discordant religions of the Empire under one common institution.”—Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church (New York, 1871), A. P. Stanley, p. 291. - rs p. 345-p. 352


So Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Generally Meet on Sundays?

In all matters of worship, Jehovah’s Witnesses, like the first-century Christians, strive to follow the Bible rather than tradition. The entire pattern for true worship is laid out in detail in the Bible. (Romans 3:4; Colossians 2:8)

So what does the Bible tell us about how first-century Christians worshipped? They regularly met together to pray, read scriptures, listen to talks, and sing songs praising God. (Acts 12:12; Colossians 3:16) At such meetings, Christians received instruction, strengthened their faith, and gave mutual encouragement to one another.—Hebrews 10:24, 25.

Around the world, Jehovah’s Witnesses closely follow the pattern of worship practiced by Jesus’ early followers. Witnesses don't devote just one day, but enjoy a weekly program of Bible instruction. The days on which their meetings are held are determined by local circumstances, not by unscriptural traditions. We worship on Sunday in many countries mainly because it is the most convenient day in that most people have that day off from work.

Recommended Related Article:

The Bible’s Viewpoint: A Weekly Holy Day—Is It Required? (g 9/11 pp. 10-11; Watchtower Online Library)

John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

John 1:1 Primer

For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was God [or 'a god']."
- NT Greek: Qeos nv o loyos
--------------"god was the word."

(The NT Greek above is an approximation of how the Greek letters actually look. For the rest of this study we will transliterate the Greek into English letters. In that way the above Greek would be written as "Theos en ho logos".) Here is another attempt to show the actual Greek: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos. In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study. 

But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"! This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words); Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project); Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God); Dr. Robert Young (Young's Analytical Concordance, Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, etc.). Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.

The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the original New Testament (NT) Greek. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb. 

Although such a "reversed" word order is extremely rare in English, it is common in NT Greek because word order within a sentence has little significance in NT Greek! 

In fact, one of the first things a beginning student of NT Greek learns is that word order has very little, if any, significance as far as the meaning is concerned. For example, respected NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).

"The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order." - p. 27, New Testament Greek For Beginners, Machen, The Macmillan Co. (Cf., pp. 7, 22, New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, Zondervan)


Professor Machen, in fact, when giving an example of a predicate nominative in NT Greek, placed the predicate nominative ("man") before the verb ("the apostle man is") and translated it "the apostle is a man."! - p. 50, Machen.

In Exercise 8 (p. 44) of the Rev. Dr. Alfred Marshall's New Testament Greek Primer, the noted trinitarian scholar asks us to translate phoneus esti into English. (Notice that the predicate noun [phoneus, 'murderer'] precedes the verb [esti, 'he is'].) The answer is given on p. 153 where Dr. Marshall translates it as "He is a murderer." - Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.

In Learn New Testament Greek by John H. Dobson we find on p. 64 two interesting Greek clauses and their translations by Dobson: the clauses are: (1) prophetes estin and (2) prophetes en. In both of these the predicate noun (prophetes) comes before the verb ('he is' and 'he was').

Here is how Dobson has translated these two clauses: "He is a prophet." And "He was a prophet." - Baker Book House, 1989.

And trinitarian NT Greek experts Dana and Mantey specifically give us an example of "a parallel to what we have in John 1:1"! Yes, these prominent trinitarian scholars have translated "market was the place" in the literal ancient Greek as "and the place was a market." They even described this example as a parallel to John 1:1! - p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan Publ., 1957 printing. 

We also find trinitarian NT scholars B. M. Newman and Eugene A Nida using a similar example to describe the usage at John 1:1c - "John Smith is a teacher." - p. 9, A Translator's Handbook on The Gospel of John, United Bible Societies, 1980. (They want it to be understood in a trinitarian "Qualitative" manner, however.)

Dr. William Barclay, similarly, describes the usage at John 1:1c: "If I say 'John is the man', I identify John with some particular man; if I say 'John is man', omitting the definite article, I simply describe John as a man." - p. 205, Ever yours, C. L. Rawlins, ed., Labarum Publ., 1980. (Trinitarian Barclay, too, wishes it to be understood in a trinitarian "Qualitative" manner, somehow.)

However, if truth means anything to us, instead of rejecting the trinitarian-devised John 1:1 rules strictly on the basis of the wishful interpretations of these NT Greek authorities, it would be much fairer and more certain to examine all the usages of a predicate noun found before its verb in John's writings that are as close to the example of John 1:1 as we can find. 

Before we examine all of John's uses of the predicate noun before its verb, we may need to review some basic grammar: We are dealing exclusively with nouns as found in John 1:1c. That is, a word which is a person, place, or thing and which can be used with both an indefinite article ("a" or "an" - in English only. Greek has no indefinite article) and a definite article ("the") and which can be properly changed into a recognizably plural form (these are sometimes called "count nouns."): 

"WORD": "a word"/"the word"/"words;" - 

"GOD": "a god"/"the god"/"gods;" - 

"HOUSE": "a house"/"the house"/"houses;" etc. 

So we can see that words like "pretty," "holy," or "true" cannot normally be made plural ("trues") and do not use articles ("a pretty," "a true") and are, therefore, not nouns as found at John 1:1c and cannot be used as proper examples in an attempt to prove or disprove a rule for John 1:1c. 

Also, this noun, to be a proper example (equivalent to John 1:1c), must be without additional phrases joined to it: "a man of the world," "a house of bricks," etc. For a detailed examination of the improper examples, or exceptions) see the DEF and QUAL studies. 

To be most certain, we need such proper examples to have a subject (a noun which is "doing" the verb) coming after the verb and a predicate noun (a noun as described above which is the same thing as the subject) which has no article coming before the verb in the NT Greek exactly as found in John 1:1c.


To find such examples we need a Greek-English New Testament Interlinear Bible (available in any "Christian" book store or from any Jehovah's Witness). Then we search through all of John's writings to find all the predicate nouns which come before the verb (and meet the above requirements) in the NT Greek. Since we are concerned about John's use (or non-use) of grammatical rules in order to determine the intended meaning of John 1:1c, we must use only examples from John's writings as proper evidence. (For others see DEF and SEPTGOD studies.)

The easiest way to do this is to carefully read through all the full-English portion in an interlinear Bible and find all the verbs which could take a predicate noun ("is," "are," "am," "was," "were," "be," "become," "became"). Then determine if a noun (as described in our requirements above) comes after that verb in the English. If it does, and if it is "equal to" the subject, we have found a predicate noun, e.g., "the bird was an eagle." In English, then, the noun "bird" comes before and is "doing" the verb "was" and is therefore the subject. The noun "eagle," in English, comes after the verb "was" and is the same thing as the subject and is therefore a predicate noun (p.n.). 

Then, after finding a proper predicate noun (p.n.), we must look at the NT Greek text (which has the equivalent English word written above each Greek word) and see if the predicate noun we found in the English translation on the other page actually comes before the verb in the original Greek. If it comes before the verb and if it is anarthrous (that is, without the definite article, "the") and meets the other requirements above, then we may have found a proper example to compare with John 1:1c. 

In the following list if the p.n. has no article, it has "an." (anarthrous) written before it. "Art." means the article "the" is with it (articular). Improper examples have "prep.," "poss. pronoun" (possessive pronoun modifier), "abstract," "numeral," etc. written after them. 

"Prep." indicates that the p.n. has a phrase joined to it (prepositional). "Abstract #": the p.n. is abstract and/or an indeterminate amount (a 'non-count' noun - see DEF 14-15). "No subject" means the subject is clearly understood, but only by the verb form used. "Participle" means the subject is not present and is only imperfectly identified by a participle ("having," "sleeping," etc.).


All Verses by John Where the Predicate Noun Precedes Its Verb

an. Jn 1:1 (verse under study)
an. John 1:12 - prep.
an. Jn 1:14 - plural (amount)
art. Jn 1:21
an. Jn 1:49 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 2:9 - accusative, not p.n
an. Jn 3:6 (a) - plural (amount)
an. Jn 3:6 (b) - abstract #
an. Jn 3:29 - participle

-an. Jn 4:9 (a)
an. Jn 4:9 (b) (adj.?)

#an. Jn 4:19
an. Jn 4:24 - abstr. # - NO VERB
an. Jn 5:27 - prep.
art. Jn 6:51 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 6:63 - abstract

-an. Jn 6:70
an. Jn 8:31 - prep.
an. Jn 8:33 - prep.
an. Jn 8:34 - prep.
an. Jn 8:37 - prep.
an. Jn 8:39 - prep.
an. Jn 8:42 - prep.
an. Jn 8:44 (a) (?? no subj.??)
an. Jn 8:44 (b) - no subject

#an. Jn 8:48
an. Jn 8:54 (a) - abstract
an. Jn 8:54 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 9:5 - prep
an. Jn 9:8 (a) - no subject
an. Jn 9:17 - no subject

-an. Jn 9:24
an. Jn 9:25 - no subject
an. Jn 9:27 - prep.
an. Jn 9:28 (a) - prep.

-an. Jn 10:1
an. Jn 10:2 - prep.
an. Jn 10:8 - plural
an. Jn 10:13 - no subject
art. Jn 10:21 - prep.

-an. Jn 10:33
an. Jn 10:34 - plural
an. Jn 10:36 - prep.
an. Jn 11:49 - prep.
an. Jn 11:51 - prep.
an. Jn 12:6 - prep
an. Jn 12:36 - prep.
an. Jn 12:50 - abstract
an. Jn 13:35 - (poss. pronoun)
art. Jn 15:1 (b)
an. Jn 15:14 - prep.
an. Jn 17:17 - abstract
an. Jn 18:26 - prep.

-an. Jn 18:35

#an. Jn 18:37 (a)
?an. Jn 18:37 (b) - no subject (except in TR and 1991 Byzantine text)
an. Jn 19:21 - prep.an.
art. Jn 20:15
art. Jn 21:7 (a)
art. Jn 21:7 (b)
an. 1 Jn 1:5 (b) - abstract #
an. 1 Jn 2:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 2:4 - participle
an. 1 Jn 3:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 3:15 - participle
an. 1 Jn 4:8 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:16 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:20 - no subject
an. 1 Jn 5:17 - abstract
art. 2 Jn :6 (b)
an. Rev. 1:20 (a) - prep.
an. Rev. 1:20 (b) - numeral
an. Rev. 2:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 3:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 13:18 - prep.
an. Rev. 14:4 - no subject/plural
an. Rev. 17:9 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:10 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:11 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:12 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:14 - prep.
an. Rev. 17:15 - plural
an. Rev. 18:7 - no subject
art. Rev. 19:8 - prep.
art. Rev. 19:9 - prep.
an. Rev. 19:10 (a) - prep.
art. Rev. 20:14 - numeral
an. Rev. 21:3 - prep.
an. Rev. 21:22 - prep.
art. Rev. 21:23 - prep. - NO VERB
an. Rev. 22:9 - prep.

_______________________

90 total (excluding John 1:1c) 

The 3 (or 4 if we use the Received Text or the 1991 Byzantine text) closest examples to Jn 1:1c have the anarthrous predicate noun before the verb and the subject after the verb. These 3 proper examples are shown above with a numeral sign (#) before them. And they also exclude personal names, abstract nouns, numerals, prepositional constructions (prep.), "time/season" nouns, clauses in which the subject is missing [but clearly understood by the verb], clauses in which the subject is only uncertainly "represented" by a participle ["having," "stealing," "hating," etc.], plurals [especially plural/amount: 'blood,' 'wine,' 'flesh,' 'fat,' 'honey,' etc.]. These are proper exceptions to the rule. They must not be included among examples where the rule is being properly used.[1] 

Here, then, are all the most-proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W and H text)[2]  for an honest examination of "Colwell's Rule" (or any related rules, including Harner's "qualitative" rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb): 


H,W  1. John 4:19 - ("a prophet") - all Bible translations
H,W  2. John 8:48 - ("a Samaritan") - all translations
H,W  3. John 18:37 (a) - ("a king") - all
[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - ("a king") - from the Received Text (TR) and the 1991 Byzantine text]


H: Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"
W: Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"

These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!

If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include all those constructions (Westcott and Hort text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject noun before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include all such examples. 

When we add those constructions to our list, we have: 


H.....1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
H,W...2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all
H,W...3. John 6:70[3] - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all
H,W...4. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all
H,W...5. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all
H,W...6. John 10:1[4] - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all
H,W...7. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all
H,W...8. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all
H,W...9. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all
[H,W.10. John 18:37 (b)[5] - indefinite ("a king") - Received Text and 1991 Byzantine text]
 
These are all indefinite nouns (not definite[6], not "qualitative"). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn't strongly resist the use of the "no subject" examples above which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., "[he] is," which would then bring our total of proper examples to nearly 20.)[7]

So when all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found at John 1:1c) examples found in John's writings are examined in various trinitarian Bibles (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"! 

Such a rendering is not only a grammatical probability (perhaps a certainty) as we have seen above, but it is not such a surprising concept as many modern members of Christendom might think. Other righteous persons and faithful angels have been called "gods" or "a god" by the inspired Bible writers - see the DEF (pp. 4-9); TRUE (f.n. #1); and BOWGOD studies. 

It is only in lands whose people are ignorant of the NT Greek language that trinitarians can convince them that the original NT Greek of Jn 1:1c means "the Word was God"! I have been told that in Greece itself the trinitarian churches carefully avoid using Jn 1:1c as evidence for the trinity doctrine or as proof of the "Deity" of Christ because the people there would scorn such an obvious misuse of their language. Even if this is incorrect, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, Origen (died 254 A.D.), tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word was a god"! - See DEF f.n. #1.

We also find in very early Coptic language translations of John 1:1c that it is rendered “and the Word was a god.” - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/

In fact, even certain trinitarian scholars have correctly admitted that those very first readers for whom John wrote his Gospel were already aware of the 'Logos' concept even before John wrote to them. This was the concept of famed Jewish scholar and writer, Philo. In this best-known Jewish concept of the Logos of that time, the Word ("Logos") was "the Son of God" and "with God" and "a god" in his own right, but that he was certainly not God nor equal to the one true God! (See the QUAL and LOGOS studies.) 

The fact that John provided no further explanation of the Word proves that he intended the Logos concept that his readers already knew: "The Word was a god."!

And, of course, John himself recorded the following prayer by Jesus: "Father, .... This is eternal life: to know thee who ALONE art truly God..." - John 17:1, 3, NEB.

......................................................................

NOTES


1. There are many rules (and their exceptions) found in all languages. For example, a well-known rule in the English language is that the pronoun “I” is used for subjects and the pronoun “me” is used for objects.

So, to use familiar examples with subject and direct object: “I saw the boy.” And “The boy saw me.”

But what about this?: “It was me.” Most of us use this kind of wording, but it is incorrect, because we are not familiar with an apparent exception. That is: when we are using a predicate noun after its verb, we must use subject pronouns. Since “was” in the sentence is a verb of “being” which makes the following pronoun ‘the same as’ the subject (actually, a predicate noun), a ‘subject’ pronoun must be used: It was I.”  


Or,

Most native-English speakers are aware of the differences in the singular past tense plural verb “was” (“I was,” “She was,” etc.) and the plural past tense verb “were” (“They were,” “We were,” etc.)

So what if an English grammar expert decided to further his religious or philosophical beliefs by writing the following in a journal or textbook:

“Whenever a singular noun or pronoun is used as the subject and is followed by a plural verb, it means that the subject is a multiple-person being [or something similar].”

Of course there are enough English grammar experts and textbooks available to us today to prove this is a purposely false ‘rule.’

But imagine if English were an old, poorly understood language and some future language expert were outlining its grammar and syntax for speakers of his language of the future. Not knowing the exceptions that we grew up with today, and wanting this to be true, many of these future people would believe this man’s ‘rule.’

This might even be convincing to a number of English-speaking people today who never learned (or ignored) the exception to the general rule of verb agreement: the subjunctive mood in English ("If I were king," "He wishes he were somewhere else."  Look up in an on-line search). But imagine how convincing it might be if this scholar were teaching future non-English speaking people who had no access to the common understanding of the English of today!

The rule of verb agreement is merely determined by a rule and its proper exceptions which have nothing to do with a “plural oneness.”

If you don’t know the exceptions, you don’t know the rule!



2. A correspondent asked me about the earliest manuscripts and also asked: "Do we know if the original writers understood, or used, the proper rules of composition?" My response:
 
It really doesn't matter. In the investigation of John 1:1c, for example, I am interested in the grammar, syntax and usage of John only. If the original writer did not fully understand the "rules," it does not matter since I am looking for parallel usages by him to see what he intended by them.

I am not talking about the 1000-year old (and even later) manuscripts (used for the Received Text), nor even manuscripts made 500 years after the originals. I am speaking of those made from about 50 years after the original and up to about 300 years after the original. And yes, even the 4th century manuscripts were still in the NT (Koine) Greek, as a comparison with the older papyri show.


Copies of the NT Greek (Koine) manuscripts were copied to follow the original. The copyists of the first three or four centuries, at least, were made by those who understood the language. And the copies thereafter, when copied with the care we should expect for such work, should have also retained the grammar and syntax of the original in most cases.


Origen, 185-254 A.D., not only had access to extremely early manuscripts (possibly even originals), but actually spoke the NT Greek language and even taught it professionally. 


He wrote a "Commentary on John" in which he quotes the Greek of John 1:1 (and more) just as we have it in all early manuscripts still existing today. And, moreover, he tells us in this same Commentary that the language of John 1:1 shows Jesus to be a god, not God (as the parallel constructions by John in a proper study also prove)!


And the John 1:1c parallel of "king are you" at John 18:37 is found in p66, p90 (150-200A.D.), and the earliest complete "letter uncial" manuscripts of the 4th and 5th centuries show the same.


If an error has been made in John 1:1c (or any of its parallels in John's writings), it is very strange that it hasn't shown up in any of these very early manuscripts! The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the text we have of John's writings matching the original (at least in the places which parallel his usage at John 1:1c)! And that is all we need for an examination of this important scripture.

Not only did the earliest Christian writers, like Origen, not understand John 1:1c as intending that the Word was God, but even as late as 325 A.D. (when Constantine forced the beginning of the official 'trinity doctrine' on his subjects at the Council of Nicea), trinity-pusher Athanasius and fellow trinitarians did not use this scripture as evidence for Jesus being God.


3. John 6:70 - "out of you one devil is" - NT Greek text. - "... one of you is a devil" - RSV.

"One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus' enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behaviour (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10]." - p. 472, Vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.


"#Joh 6:70 'One of you is a devil'. … diabolical, or under the influence of the evil one." - People's New Testament Notes.


So a man who is from [literally "out of," ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a 'son of the Devil' (Acts 13:10), and who is "with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called "a devil" (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: "Judas was with ho diabolos [the Devil], and diabolos was Judas." And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translated it literally ("Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil") or 'qualitatively' ("Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the "nature" of the Devil"), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree some (or one) of the qualities of the Devil, or is under the Devil's influence, but he is not equally the Devil with Satan himself! No reasonable person would accept this as evidence for some mysterious 'Satanity'! This is precisely the same as the use of 'god' (theos) at John 1:1c !!!


Also examine John 4:24 (no verb!) If word order and verb placement is really so important for understanding predicate nouns, how could John possibly leave the verb out in such a case?



4. "That one thief is and plunderer." The problem here is that Jesus uses 'thief' before the verb and 'plunderer' after the verb. Do we really think he intended us to understand the thief to be a 'qualitative' p.n. ('thiefish,' 'having all the qualities of thiefdom') and also "a plunderer"? "That one has all the qualities of thieves and is a plunderer"?



5. The ancient manscripts for the second use of 'king' in John 18:37 (18:37b) are without punctuation and could just as easily be understood to say "a king am I" in the NT Greek. In fact it seems that this is the correct understanding here to be more parallel with the first half of the verse. This would mean that it truly is a fourth proper example (or 10th in the second list of proper examples) as indicated in the Received Text (translated by the KJV, NKJV, MKJV, and others following the KJV traditions) and in the 1991 Byzantine text).



6. For those who believe that constructions like that of John 1:1c (where the predicate noun comes before its verb) mean the predicate noun has an understood definite article: why would there be any such constructions actually using the definite article (if it is really understood anyway)?


John 1:21 - definite article used
John 15:1(b) - definite article used
John 20:15 - definite article used
2 John :6 (b) - definite article used


7. Colwell and Harner use this type of construction in their JBL articles. And Daniel B. Wallace uses it also in his Grammar. Wallace and Harner, in fact, list these proper examples which I have listed in the Gospel of John: John 8:44b; 9:8, 17, 25; 10:13; 12:6. I have also listed 1 Jn 4:20 and Rev. 18:7 in this ‘understood subject’ category. Adding these Colwell/Harner/Wallace-approved constructions to our list of proper examples would leave us with:


1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”)


2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”)


3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”)


4. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”)


5. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all


6. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a robber”)


7. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) -


8. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) -


9. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) -


10. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in TR and 1991 Byzantine text


11. John 8:44(b) - (“a liar”)


12. John 9:8 - (“a beggar”)


13. John 9:17 - (“a prophet”)


14. John 9:25 - (“a sinner”)


15. John 10:13 - (“a hireling/hired man”)


16. John 12:6 - (“a thief”)


17. 1 John 4:20 - (“a liar”)


18. Revelation 18:7- (“a widow”)

---------------------------------------------

For more concerning John 1:1, see:

John 1:1 - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses Category)

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe That They Are Earning Their Salvation as Some Opposers Claim?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that salvation is by works or that it is something that they can “earn.” Here is what the Witnesses officially believe as quoted in their "Reasoning from the Scriptures" book:

"Eph. 2:8, 9, ... The entire provision for salvation is an expression of God's undeserved kindness. There is no way that a descendant of Adam can gain salvation on his own, no matter how noble his works are. Salvation is a gift from God given to those who put faith in the sin-atoning value of the sacrifice of his Son...A person does not earn salvation by his works. But anyone who has genuine faith will have works to go with it—works of obedience to the commands of God and Christ, works that demonstrate his faith and love."

So Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in salvation by grace or "undeserved kindness"--contrary to claims made by some critics.

There is no amount of works that any human can do to gain salvation. Salvation is a gift through faith. A person could be doing all the good works possible yet still not be saved since he did not have faith. Conversely a person could believe and have faith in Jesus, yet if he did not practice the actions or works of a Christian his faith alone would not save him. (cf. Eph. 2:8,10, Rev. 2:23)

Therefore, the “faith alone” teaching is not a biblical teaching. There is no true, saving faith without works! This is explicitly stated in James 2:14,22,24-26: You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.” Any faith without works is “dead faith.”

Many scholars note that the Biblical concept of faith requires action:

"Faith understood merely as trust and confession is not able to save. Only through obedience . . . and conduct which fulfills the commandments of God does faith come to completion (Jas. 2:22)"--The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Zondervan, 1975), I.

"Our conclusion must be that ‘faith' in the vocabulary of Christians is not only belief and trust, but also faithfulness and loyalty. Put technically and linguistically, ‘faith' is both active and passive in sense. It is not only the inspiration of all religion but is also a moral excellence."--–Nigel Turner, Christian Words

There are a lot of things that Scripture says people must do or have in order to be saved. All these are necessary to bring us to salvation in Christ.

Baptism "saves you" (Mk 16:16; 1Pt 3:21).

A righteous life-style: Cannot practice sin (1Pt.2:24; 4:17-18; Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-29; Mt 28:19-20; Ac 26:20).

Knowledge: (Jn.17:3; 1Pet.2:2; Mt 28:19-20; 1Cor15:1,2)

Public declaration: (Rm.10:9,10).

Endurance: (Mt.24:13; Lu 13:23, 24;Phil.2:12 Cf. Mt 7:13, 14; 28:19-20).

Believing and teaching true doctrine: (2Thes.2:10; 1Tim.4:15-16; Cf. Joh 4:23)

All these are necessary to bring us to salvation in Christ.

Faith without knowledge is "blind faith" or gullibility.

Christ stated:"faith comes from hearing the message, and the message comes through preaching Christ" (Rm. 10:17 TEV).

This shows that knowledge is a prerequisite for faith. The context makes this very clear by giving us the steps which lead to salvation: 10:13 "or ‘Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?" (NLT)

So Christ listed the steps leading to salvation: 1. "Hearing" or gaining knowledge by being taught. 2. Believing because of what we now know. 3. Taking action to "call upon" the One we *KNOW* can save us. 4. Salvation.

So, more than a simple belief is required. Belief or faith in Jesus is based on knowledge of how to live a Christian life and then obedience to Christian requirements, not a simple calling Jesus our Lord (Mt.7:21-23; Heb.5:9; Phil 2:12; Jas 1:22, cf. Jn.17:3).

To be saved now and in the future we must have accurate knowledge and continue to act on it by showing faith in Christ and exercising that faith by Christian works/actions.

SOURCE: This is an answer provided by BAR_ANERGES to a question at Yahoo Answers.