I was just looking back at this reply and I noted that it did not place the marks within the post to see what you said vs. what I said. I am thus reposting it here.

Osoclasi,

The following is my response to your discussion on John 1:1. The points I am reply to are marked by and closed by . My replies are marked by (Tony-Reply)and closed by (/Tony-Reply)

(Osoclasi)s Jesus being described here as God almighty or just ` a god.` as some would like to say. Many would argue that since the predicate nominative Theos en `o logos does not have the article in front of clause that means that we should translate Theos with the indefinite article. ( a God.) (/Osoclasi)

(Tony-Reply)This is not entirely accurate. While it is granted that QEOS lacks the article, and thus can rightfully be taken indefinitely, this is not the basis for the argument of an indefinite translation.

Rather, we find that QEOS is a singular count noun. As a count noun, it can be taken either definitely or indefinitely. The question is, which should it be?

If QEOS is in fact definite, we find ourselves with modalism. The other alternative is that QEOS should be taken indefinitely, resulting in the indefinite translation.(/Tony-Reply)

(Osoclasi)
No one would translate this as `a` God was reconcilling the world to himself in Christ. An indefinite article does not fit, but we have the same construction here in the Greek as in John 1:1. We have Theos followed by an equative verb `en`, so one cannot say that Jesus is `a` God based on the idea that just because Theos is antharous (without the article) then it is indefinite.
(/Osoclasi)

(Tony-Reply)
As any first year Greek student can tell you, 2 Cor. 5:19 does not even remotely compare to John 1:1. QEOS is the subject, Christ is the indirect object, and the world is the object. This is not a predicate nominative at all, so there is no basis for comparison, and even if there was, QEOS can be definitized here. Trinitarians are stuck in a bind, because QEOS cannot be definite in John 1:1c without contradicting their theology.
(/Tony-Reply)

(Osoclasi)
The article in front of logos tells us that logos is the subject and Theos is being used in a qualitative sense, meanging that the Word was fully God, not simply a created being.
(/Osoclasi)

(Tony-Reply)
QEOS as a predicate nominative is indeed a class noun, demonstrating the quality that one possess. However, unless you can provide an example of a purely qualitative count noun, you have no choice but to confess that we must be able to definitize or indefinitize the noun.

Having said that, what is your basis for concluding that it means he was fully God? Grammatically there is not one. Consider John 6:70.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Did I not choose you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!

This verse is almost universally translated as "a devil" and yet, just as with John 1:1, it is an anarthrous predicate nominative. Now we understand that in the Bible the Devil is Satan, a person, a fallen angel. Here Jesus states that one of his disciples is DIABOLOS. Here, it is also an anarthrous predicate nominative, so should we also say that all of what Satan is this disciple is too? Is this disciple the Father of the lie? Is this disciple a spirit being? Is this disciple a fallen angel? Well no, he is not. He is a devil, belonging to this class and possessing the qualities of this person, but that does not make him the same or equal to that of Satan the Devil. In this same sense, because Jesus has the quality of QEOS, in that he belongs to the class of QEOS, this does not mean that he is all of what The God is.
(/Tony-Reply)

(Osoclasi)
the Son was with the Father since the beginning, with en being in the imperfect tense signifying a continuous action in the past. Meaning that no matter where one puts the beginning the Son was there.
(/Osoclasi)

(Tony-Reply)
I'm not sure if you are arguing based on the imperfect that the Son is eternal or not. Just in case, John 1:10 rules that out, for we all know Christ was not eternally in the world.
(/Tony-Reply)

Tony-Conclusion:
Osoclasi, you have placed yourself in a difficult spot by using this verse to argue for Trinitarianism. You argue for a qualitative interpretation of John 1:1, which I do not object to, but at the same time you have no choice but to accept that QEOS can be made definite or indefinite. If we definitize it, the result is modalism, and so the alternative is to make it indefinite.

Regards,
Tony