wrote in message
news:168.26.08.05.884892000@srcbs.org...
>
>
> larswilson wrote:
>> The SYNTAX of this in modern concept
>
> If you feel you know your Greek well enough to post on syntax, the
> perhaps you would care to explain for us why the Trinitarian is
> required to have John use a definite article in Jn 1:1c.

Regardless of the expertise in completely unstanding ancient koine Greek,
I tihnk whatever John was saying about "a god", "god" or "the god" at
Jn 1:1c must harmonize with his furhter definition in verse 18 as the
"only begotten god in the bosom position of the Father." Here Jesus'
godship is being referred to again. Jesus as the "only begotten god" must
be the same god of Jn 1:1c. Likewise when it says that Jesus was *with
god*
in Jn 1:1b and in the "bosom position of the Father" in verse 18, you have
an more detail. That is, Christ is with god in hi bosom position. By
calling him
"only begotten" establishes him as the "son of God" which is also his title.

So Greek experts can put any article they want on Jn 1:1c or leave it off
since if
John wants to use "the god" to refer to both the Father and Son that
reference is
in the context of the "position" and "nature" of "the god" , a nature shared
by both
Christ and God, but without making them the same person.

Perhaps John was saying Christ and the Father were both "the god" as we
would
perceive of "the government". We can speak of the President as being "the
government"
because of his position, but the Vice President is also "the government".

Thus when we ask about the "nature of Christ" we go to John 1:1. But not
there to ask
of the relationship between Christ and God. For that we find many other
references where
they are Father and Son, the "Firstborn of creation", the "only-begotten
god" and Michael,
the Archangel the being directly created by God's word whereas it was the
direct word of
Jesus who created all other things.

>In point of
> fact, the Trinitarian, and John, would never use the definite article.
> For if the definite article was used, then it would be a statement of
> absolute singularity, that is, Jesus in the one and only person of the
> Godhead. But John, nor the epistles, so discribe the incarnate Christ.
>
Again, we do not use John 1:1 to define the relationship between Christ and
God, only to understand an aspect of his godship. We know from other
reference
this is a Father and Son; two separate individuals, related to one another,
one older and
one younger, one "begotten" and one without beginning.

> There is also the matter of the preposition epi in Jn 1:1b.