And the word 'was God' or 'was a God'?

[Mina Monir]

and the word 'was God ' or 'was a God'? what does greek original text tell us here?

all the translations write it 'was god' in john 1:1

but in the 'new world translation' of the jehovah witnesses heretics write it 'was a god' ... what does really original greek text say here ? would any one knows greek tell me as detailed as possible the meaning? thanks

in Christ
Mina

[Scamandrius]

The Greek text says, kai theos en ho logos, and the WORD was [the] GOD. There is no definite article with theos. Nor should there be one. In Greek sentences which are put together with linking verbs (to be), the subject will receive the definite article while the predicate complement, whether a noun or adjective, does not require one. However, when translating it into English, you should still supply the word "the."

The Jevovah's Witnesses would never say that the Word was God because they adhere to an essentially Arian view of Christ in that he is a created being and thus cannot be of the same substance or nature as God.

The Arians also appealed to Scripture to support their view that Christ was created, from one of the psalms with a revelation of Christ where the Greek word gignomai is strictly used in the sense of bearing a child. Thus, to them, how can we confess Christ as still God and begotten, if this verse indicates a creative act for the Word to come forth? This is how heretics misuse Scripture. They toil endlessly with finding leaks in the boat of Scripture by applying grammar rules or constructs or exceptions to rules. Coniaris says in his chapter on the Bible in Introducing the Orthodox Faith that such people will be received at the heavenly gates and reproached for having so little faith.

The word was with God and was God. This is the creed. This is not just an Orthodox belief; it is a Christian belief.

Hope this helps.

Scamandrius
unworthy servant of God

[Mina Monir]

Dear Scamandrius , thanks for your explanation , I think I got the point ... but let me ask a if there is a good book or reference explains using of greek in the new testament , this may help me in understanding the deep meaning of some verses as the previous one ... It would be better if the book is on the net , as I live in Egypt .

thanks again.
Mina

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mina,

We have heard news of your Churches very recent persecutions, the deaths and suffering of our beloved Coptic Christian brothers and sisters, our prayers are with you.

http://www.copts.net/detail.asp?id=875


Kyrie Eleison.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Theopesta]

Dear Mr Matthew Panchisin

our joys become mixed with deep suffer and in our sufferings we are live with the hope that we are sojourners, we should be ready for all sorts of witness-- red and white.

no month path now except with deep pain in our churches or families

[Mina Monir]

dear Mathew ,

1400 of arabian invasion wont be enough to convert a single coptic from christianity

I want to thank u firstly for your feelings ... and tell u that history is the greatist witness on our bloody life.

but the thing i want to say is that we are always the winners. victory is ours. all the muslims here in egypt are from arabian penninsulla and north africa and iran. .. they came here in egypt in the 7th century. they burnt the library of alexandria , and killed more than 2 million coptic ... but till this moment , no muslim here is from coptic roots.
that's why they use the term "coptic" to describe the christian egyptian ... the word coptic here is equal to christian. the christ wont leave us. we do not talk about persecutions because it is a daily activity.

before I post this message I had a big problem in the military papers because I'm christian.the Identity of the egyptian includes your religion ... name : Mina . Job : ... adress: ... sex : ... Religion : ... the part of religion makes the greatest troubles.
kidnapping coptic girls is a daily news ... but the promisses of our lord are clear.the gates of hell shall not prevail against it(matt 16 : 18)

in christ
Mina

[Scamandrius]

Mina,

I don't know of any one book that is out there. There are introductions to koine Greek which use the Bible as its main source of teaching material. In a perfect world, we'd all learn Greek.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif I'll keep looking for you, though.

P.S. I am overjoyed and give thanks to our Lord to see that you and that your brothers and sisters are unwavering and steadfast in the midst of unwavering and persistent presence of those who hate you for His sake.

Scamandrius,
unworthy servant of God

[Mina Monir]

dear mina soliman ,

Matta el maskin is a heretic ... and he does not have a level to talk with . he - like the russian monks he translate from... and the catholic - cannot prove anything ... his writings makes me laugh. no one read for him ... just know him , unfortunately , the propaganda makes him as a (da7eyya) or sacrifice ... but no one can accept one like him. he said bad words on Pope kyrellos and described him as a stupid ... this pope who is a great saint and his miracles are known for every one outside egypt... matta el maskin believes in the salvation of non-Believers and said about president mohammed anwar el-Sadat who persecuted the copts that he is a martyr and will go to heaven!! sure I wont talk about his offensive and bad words he said about our pope because we don't partake divine ousia!

let me now explain the thoughts of this man :
1) u said : "From what I hear about Fr. Matta, he is a theologian par excellence, and many in the Coptic Church today do not understand his level, for he is at the same level as many Byzantine theologians who have contributed to the theology of theosis." no , he is not par excellent ... he is (par cozeba) which means the son of liars in hebrew. because he makes doubts on four parts in the gospel and I do not think that u can accept that. HH pope shenouda answered him in the series of comperative theology books and we can read how wrong he is. besides, let me stop at ur word "I heard" , I think u need to read not hear to know how heretic he is... he says that the 16th chapter of mark's gospel is not written by him and he studies biblical criticism!! the EO churches do not believe in his idea about taking the divine ousia . he fought for that in his famous book (el osool el abaa2eyya el orthodoxya) and mentioned it clear that we are partakers IN the divine ousia ... and any one does not believe in that he loses hope .

2) u mentioned : "We know that the divine nature of God contains the ousia which only the Trinity partakes of and the UNCREATED energies which we can partake of. In fact, the reason St. Cyril believes in Miaphysis and many of his Alexandrian predecessors is because of St. Clement's famous quote:"God became man so that man may become God." matta translates the writings of the fathers in a very bad way , the greek language professors in egypt become depressed from his weak translation. the writings of athanasius (the incarnation of the word ) is clear .. it mentioned the previous quote , but truly and in detail described how we are gods ... we are gods as in exodus and in john , we are gods as in Genesis ... in the shape of god ... but we can't bear the divinity . this does not mean that salvation and becoming better is moral and not metaphysic ... don't forget the role of the holy spirit through baptism and eucharist. but please read my previous post to recognize this point. Eastern orthodox church can't accept doubts on the gospels ... and HH patriarch alexi of russia said that the monks of russia who believe in that idea like matta they do not represent EO theology. and HE Metropolitan Bishoy answered him . Athanasius of makarius monastery , his famous defender wrote a black book defending for the christology of nestorian church of assyria, and metropolitan bishoy answered him and Mar Baway suro the archbishop of the assyrians. and they could not reply in the famous book (how could we be silent!!) , meanwhile, the catholic church made the official embarrasing agreement with the assyrian in 1994 mentioning clearly that the name 'christotokos' is accurate than 'theotokos' and cyril fought nestour not for christology but for politics ( this reminds me the story of leo of rome ).
I have a library in my home just for the writings of matta el maskin , I studied it and I extracted his heresies,

the book of eucharist u mentioned is one of the most disastrouss books!! he said that" the 7 sacraments were limited as 7 by thomas aquinas".aquinas is the famous catholic theologian who invinted the worst heresey I have ever seen.. the heresey of purgatory. matta in his book : "el tagassod el elaahy" said that the holy spirit united with the apostles HYPOSTATISTICALLY. and in the book (el osool el abaa'eyya) the title was : THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF THE CHRIST , A HUMAN NATURE UNITED WITH THE DIVINE NATURE< and the scripture says that the church is the group of believers! he says that's why we are like christ (el osool el abaa2eya) .. no one accepts this madness.

3) u said : then it makes sense that we are in fact "partakers of the Divine Nature." We do not partake of the Ousia of God, but the Energia of God, that which is revealed to us that is uncreated. Fr. Tadros Malaty, Coptic historian and theologian, quotes someone who defined "grace" not just as a gift, but as the uncreated energy of God. This is what I believe Fr. Matta is saying. I don't believe Fr. Matta says that we partake of the ousia of God. I think we are jumping to conclusions in condemning Fr. Matta as such. all u mentioned is correct , and father tadros is one of the greatest theologians in the church now. but believe it : matta says we take the divine ousia. he said : we eat the divinity in eucharist !!!! (the eucharist book)

before I forget : u said two books published by st.Vladimir for him . the orthodox life prayer is written firstly by two great theologians : John of Kronstadt . and pope shenouda when he was a solitary monk . matta rearranged the books of john and pope shenouda ... and added some quotes from the Nicene\post Nicene fathers , and published it. the second book has a funny story, I wont say it here.

More heresies : fthr Matta does not accept the concept of anathema. in his book (the christian unity) he says that the protestant church is like the catholic and orthodox church , no anathemas BECAUSE THE DOGMAS ARE HUMAN INVENTION , AND CHRIST DID NOT PUT A DOGMA!!! I don't think EO can accept that. about the gospel , in his interpretation of st.Mark gospel he said that : MARK DID NOT WRITE THE 16TH CHAPTER, BUT A THEOLOGIAN IN THE SECOND CENTURY CALLED ARISTON WROTE IT http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/lol.gifthat's why he refused to interpret this chapter. note that this chapter is not the only part he did not accept , he refused many parts of the gospel depending on very weak protestant and catholic resources of very known characters . he believes in the salvation of non believers . he said : WHEN WILL WE KNOW THE CHRIST OF BUDDHISTS AND OTHER GROUPS? THE CHRIST CAN NOT BE A PRISONER OF A ONE PLACE OR A CHURCH OR A GROUP!!! BUT THE SALVATION HIS BLOOD IS FOR ALL WHO KNOW HIM OR DON'T.!!! do u think it is a level to talk about? this man flattered (mesh 3awez a2ool kelma tania ) the muslim president Mohammed anwar el sadat who supported the jihadis and terrorists and persecuted the copts and sent our metropolitans to jail and pull out the chin of metropolitan bishoy as Leo did to dioscorus , and killed my uncle in Assiut islamic revolution ... he said to the new york times : (EL SADAT SHAHEED RAA7 EL SAMA do u want to know more about him ?

in Christ
Mina

[Mina Monir]

I apologize , I sent this letter in a wrong thread
sorry again

[Alec Lowly]

Scamandrius writes:


"I am overjoyed and give thanks to our Lord to see that you and that your brothers and sisters are unwavering and steadfast in the midst of unwavering and persistent presence of those who hate you for His sake."

Amen to that, Mina. It's humbling to learn of the struggles and tribulations that you and your brothers and sisters undergo for the sake of Christ Jesus. This knowledge makes our problems here in North America and Europe -- particularly our scandalous lack of unity -- look very petty indeed. We Orthodox who live in freedom have much to answer for.

Pray for us as we pray for you.

In XC.
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Mina Monir]

thanks brothers ,

infact , I may open thread talking about the history of copts , and how do they live in a very hard life with muslims who invaded egypt . one word to say : when u in europe and america have the freedom to talk and preach and talk about christ , the laws stops us from building churches ... nor printing books . and the muslims build their mosques everywhere any time.

one thing : we all know that father Antonius the great put the idea of monasticism and was the first monk in the world, the oldest monastery in the world (his monastery on the red sea mountain in egypt) is under threat... islamics and government attacked it and destroyed the clay wall built by antonius himself in the third century!! our pope was 5 years in exile and the bishops became familiar with prison ... imagine your life when ur neighbours are Bin Ladens!!! imagine it and u will know how is the life of a coptic.

in christ,
Mina

[Eugenebancroft]

I don't know of any one book that is out there. There are introductions to koine Greek which use the Bible as its main source of teaching material. In a perfect world, we'd all learn Greek.http://www.monachos.net/forum/../mb/clipart/happy.gif I'll keep looking for you, though.

[David Withun]

I recently wrote a post on this very topic (the JW's and their New World [mis]Translation) on my blog. I was able to track down the word from the Biblical text scholar whom they quote as an authority in the NWT's footnotes to justify their deviation from the traditional English translation. Here's what he has to say:

The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt's rendering is "the Word was divine." William's translation is, "the Word was God Himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have.
If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and the nature is the highest in existence, namely divine.
There you have it. The scholar whom they quote to justify their Arianism rebuts them using nearly the same anti-Arian language as the First Ecumenical Council.