- This topic is empty.
- Posts
There are those that base doctrine on English translations as if these translations were inspired themselves. John 1 is a good example and it's mistranslation one reason why their doctrines are flawed.
The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4
Our English Bible gradually developed over the last six hundred years. John Wycliffe is credited with the first English translation of the New Testament which was completed about 1380 C.E. Until that time the Word of Yahweh was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people. The Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome about 400 C.E. was the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church.Wycliffe's translation is based upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. It is therefore a “version of a version.” In Wycliffe's version, John 1:3-4 use the word “him” in reference to the “Word” of verse 1 and is a translation of the Latin “ipsum” and “ipso” (he, she, or it).
The next great English translator was William Tyndale. He was an excellent Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus which Wycliffe did not have. The hand of the Almighty was upon Tyndale as He used him to give us our first English translation based upon the Hebrew and Greek. His New Testament was published in 1526 and revised to its final state in 1534.
Tyndale's translation of John 1:3-4 reads, “All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.” As you can see, Tyndale used “it” instead of “him.” “It” is a translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he, she, or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the “logos” or “word” of verse 1 and he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate or Wycliffe.
Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale, gave us the first complete Bible printed in English in 1535. It was not a firsthand translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but was based on the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale's translation. Coverdale used “him” in John 1:3-4.
In 1537, John Rogers, using the pseudonym “Thomas Matthew,” published a translation based largely on Tyndale and Coverdale which became known as Matthew's Bible. He uses “it” in John 1:3-4.
The Great Bible followed in 1539 and was a revision of Matthew's Bible. The first edition was prepared by Miles Coverdale. For some reason Coverdale decided “it” was more correct than “him” which appeared in his 1535 version based on the Latin Vulgate and left John 1:3-4 as it was in Matthew's translation, “it” instead of “him.”. The Great Bible was the first authorized English version and was ordered to be placed in every church.
Under Queen Mary the printing of the English Bible ended and its use in the churches was forbidden. This gave rise to a version completed in Geneva. The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to have numbered verses, each set off as a separate paragraph. This Bible became the “household Bible of the English-speaking nations.” It held that position for about 75 years. It was Shakespeare's Bible and that of the Puritans who settled New England. Once again, the translation of John 1:3-4 follows Tyndale's example, “it” instead of “him.”
Queen Elizabeth eventually reinstated the order that a copy of the Bible be placed in every church and she encouraged its reading. Since there were not enough copies of the Great Bible, the bishops themselves made a new revision known as the Bishop's Bible. It was published in 1568. It was used mostly by the clergy, not being very popular with the common people. It, too, renders John 1:3-4 using “it,” not “him.”
In 1582, the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament was completed and known as the Rheims New Testament. It was the result of a battle between Papists and Protestants, the former believing the Latin Vulgate to be the standard upon which all translations should be made. It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin. They chose to render John 1:3-4 using “him” as did the previous versions based on the Vulgate.
From that point on, all future versions, beginning with the King James version of 1611, used “him” instead of “it” in their translation of John 1:3-4. As you can see, the following translation of John 1:3-4 is not without historic and linguistic foundation;
“All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”
The “logos” (Word) of John 1:1 means “the spoken word” or “something said (including the thought).” In that sense the word is an “it,” not a person but a thing. In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, “And Elohim said.” Yahweh spoke and it was done. Ps.33:6,9 says, “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; “And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh” (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the “Word of [Yahweh]” until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.
De 32:39 says, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” Yahweh the Father is speaking here. He is saying there is no other “elohim” or no other God with Him. John 1:1 says, ” . . .and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.” If the “Word” is the Son and the Son was WITH God and was God, how does that harmonize with the above verse? In De 32:39, since Yahweh was speaking, then there was no other God with Him, not even the Son.
To say the “logos” of John 1:1 is a reference to Messiah is to read him into the text. Roman Catholic scholars had to do this in order to support their unscriptural trinity doctrine. If Messiah did not pre-exist, the trinity doctrine would collapse, it being based upon the belief that all three members of the “godhead” were co-eternal. Since Messiah only pre-existed in Yahweh's plan of salvation and not literally, the trinity doctrine is without foundation.
http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/Jn.1.htmlmartian………..Right on, God and His Word are one and the same thing, just as our words and us are the same thing. The word of God is an (IT) and (IT) is GOD, and the word (IT) was (IN) Jesus by the Christos or anointing. The false teaching of the Trinity is indeed supported by the False teaching of the Preexistence of Jesus As the (word) being a separate person from GOD HIMSELF>
peace and love to you and your martian………………………gene
To All,
In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!Neither The Hebrew Masoretic Texts nor the Greek language have a word for “OF”; added ONLY IN ENGLISH!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 11 2010,11:59) To All, In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!Neither The Hebrew Masoretic Texts nor the Greek language have a word for “OF”; added ONLY IN ENGLISH!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I am sorry, I do not get your point?I posted these same translations on another thread and got a searing remark that I do not know Greek …. blah Blah Blah ….. Any so called student of manuscripts and translations knows that you give much more credence to copies closer to the original in time. Some of these translators use Erasmus' translations and others used the latin vulgate/catholic text. Erasmus is much older and should carry more weight but politics changed the wording for doctrine sake and not for the sake of accuracy.
Quote (martian @ Aug. 17 2010,12:05) I posted these same translations on another thread and got a searing remark that I do not know Greek …. blah Blah Blah ….. Any so called student of manuscripts and translations knows that you give much more credence to copies closer to the original in time. Some of these translators use Erasmus' translations and others used the latin vulgate/catholic text. Erasmus is much older and should carry more weight but politics changed the wording for doctrine sake and not for the sake of accuracy.
Exactly, Blah Blah Blah.What makes you think you are so right or your sources. Again you know nothing of the Hebrew or Greek and have no ability to understand what is right or wrong! You have simply gathered scattered information from unknown or unreliable sources.
All of the major translations on Biblegateway.com and blue letterbible.org translate John 1:1 the same.
Why were the older translations dropped? Because as time went on more information and understanding of the “Koine Greek” revealed that they were flawed. If you do not know the following then your post and claim is a straw, and disregarded by the cream of Greek scholarship.
Take the example of translating John 1:1 for instance…
What case, gender, and number is “Theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?
How about parsing “en”, it’s found three times in the verse. It’s very important.
Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?
How does the imperfect tense relate to the prepositional phrase at the start of the verse?
Why is “arche” in dative case? Why does “pros” have grave accent?
Do you know these things? I doubt it.
So continue on with your false doctrine and claims.
WJ
Quote (martian @ Aug. 12 2010,07:52) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 11 2010,11:59) To All, In written grammar there is what is called the article.
In the English we have a total of Three articles; both the
definite and the indefinite. The word THE is the definite article.
The definite article is used to define something or someone that is
definite. A and AN are both indefinite articles being less specific. There
is only one article in Hebrew [ה], it is definite and pronounced Hä and Hey.
It's used twice in GOD’s Holy Name יהוה pronounced YÄ-hä-vā and spelled YHVH
in English. There's at least 12 different articles in Greek; and all of them are definite.
The determining factor for which one that is used is based upon whether the case is Dative,
Nominative, Genitive, Vocative, or Accusative. Some of the Greek articles are ο, τον, του, and τω.Conclusion: Each and every time “an indefinite article” is used in The Scriptures it is ALWAYS used at
the translators discretion; nothing to build doctrine on! (Isaiah 55:8-9) And in like manor ALL personal
pronouns (He, She, Him, Her, His & it) ALL originate form ONE GREEK WORD: [αὐτός] (autos) ow-tos'!Neither The Hebrew Masoretic Texts nor the Greek language have a word for “OF”; added ONLY IN ENGLISH!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I am sorry, I do not get your point?
Hi Martian,Seems you assert 'it' is the proper translation based on William Tyndale as a translator.
Re-read my Post so 'you' can begin to grasp “the bigger picture”; OK?
How could you have possibly of missed my point?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 09 2010,10:10) martian………..Right on, God and His Word are one and the same thing, just as our words and us are the same thing. The word of God is an (IT) and (IT) is GOD, and the word (IT) was (IN) Jesus by the Christos or anointing. The false teaching of the Trinity is indeed supported by the False teaching of the Preexistence of Jesus As the (word) being a separate person from GOD HIMSELF> peace and love to you and your martian………………………gene
Gene,To continue with your reasoning:
God and His Will are one and the same thing.
Extrapolating from this: We are created by God's will, we are evil, we are God or God is evil.
Is there ever a “word” of truth coming from you?
From what I read you are saying that the “word” is God Himself and is NOT a separate person in John 1:1-3
Once again:
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
How many “people” are here? Two
Identify them. Word, God
How do we know? The word WITH shows that Word was WITH God.Now if you don't agree with verse 1 we have:
Jhn 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
How many “people” are here? Two
Identify them. He, God
How do we know? The word WITH shows that He was WITH God.
When? In the beginning.Jhn 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Who is the Creator? Him.
Who is Him? He who was WITH God.
Who was WITH God? The Word. HaDabar.The Professor
Ps Verses 14-17 unravels the mysterious Him = Jesus
Jesus is our Creator but NOT NOT NOT our God.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2010,05:43) Quote (martian @ Aug. 17 2010,12:05) I posted these same translations on another thread and got a searing remark that I do not know Greek …. blah Blah Blah ….. Any so called student of manuscripts and translations knows that you give much more credence to copies closer to the original in time. Some of these translators use Erasmus' translations and others used the latin vulgate/catholic text. Erasmus is much older and should carry more weight but politics changed the wording for doctrine sake and not for the sake of accuracy.
Exactly, Blah Blah Blah.What makes you think you are so right or your sources. Again you know nothing of the Hebrew or Greek and have no ability to understand what is right or wrong! You have simply gathered scattered information from unknown or unreliable sources.
All of the major translations on Biblegateway.com and blue letterbible.org translate John 1:1 the same.
Why were the older translations dropped? Because as time whent on more information and understanding of the “Koine Greek” revealed that they were flawed. If you do not know the following then your post and claim is a straw, and disregarded by the cream of Greek scholarship.
Take the example of translating John 1:1 for instance…
What case, gender, and number is “Theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?
How about parsing “en”, it’s found three times in the verse. It’s very important.
Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?
How does the imperfect tense relate to the prepositional phrase at the start of the verse?
Why is “arche” in dative case? Why does “pros” have grave accent?
Do you know these things? I doubt it.
So continue on with your false doctrine and claims.
WJ
Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.My resources are wrong because they disagree with yours? That real honest.
Could it be also that Tendales translation was ignored as the concept of the Trinity was developed over the years? Could it be that your father constantine banned it too?You know you are going to force me to go to a real Greek scholar just to shut your face up.
Until then just keep up the blah blah blah
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 09 2010,02:10) martian………..Right on, God and His Word are one and the same thing, just as our words and us are the same thing. The word of God is an (IT) and (IT) is GOD, and the word (IT) was (IN) Jesus by the Christos or anointing. The false teaching of the Trinity is indeed supported by the False teaching of the Preexistence of Jesus As the (word) being a separate person from GOD HIMSELF> peace and love to you and your martian………………………gene
We should all know that God did not become flesh, it was Jesus. Taking one Translator over the other makes no sense whatsoever just so some don't want to believe that Christ was with His Father before the world was….We have a German Bible and in it it tells us that the Son is with His Father. That is the way it is written there. We also have another Scripture that talks about The Word of God, besides John 1:1-14
Rev. 19:13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood and His name is called The Word of God.
verse 14 And the armies in Heaven are clothed in fine linen white and clean, followed Him on white Horses.
verse 15 Out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rode of iron. He Himself treads the wine press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.
verse 18 And on His robe and on His thigh a name written:
“KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is talking about Jesus Christ….
Peace IreneQuote (martian @ Aug. 17 2010,15:17) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2010,05:43) Quote (martian @ Aug. 17 2010,12:05) I posted these same translations on another thread and got a searing remark that I do not know Greek …. blah Blah Blah ….. Any so called student of manuscripts and translations knows that you give much more credence to copies closer to the original in time. Some of these translators use Erasmus' translations and others used the latin vulgate/catholic text. Erasmus is much older and should carry more weight but politics changed the wording for doctrine sake and not for the sake of accuracy.
Exactly, Blah Blah Blah.What makes you think you are so right or your sources. Again you know nothing of the Hebrew or Greek and have no ability to understand what is right or wrong! You have simply gathered scattered information from unknown or unreliable sources.
All of the major translations on Biblegateway.com and blue letterbible.org translate John 1:1 the same.
Why were the older translations dropped? Because as time whent on more information and understanding of the “Koine Greek” revealed that they were flawed. If you do not know the following then your post and claim is a straw, and disregarded by the cream of Greek scholarship.
Take the example of translating John 1:1 for instance…
What case, gender, and number is “Theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?
How about parsing “en”, it’s found three times in the verse. It’s very important.
Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?
How does the imperfect tense relate to the prepositional phrase at the start of the verse?
Why is “arche” in dative case? Why does “pros” have grave accent?
Do you know these things? I doubt it.
So continue on with your false doctrine and claims.
WJ
Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.My resources are wrong because they disagree with yours? That real honest.
Could it be also that Tendales translation was ignored as the concept of the Trinity was developed over the years? Could it be that your father constantine banned it too?You know you are going to force me to go to a real Greek scholar just to shut your face up.
Until then just keep up the blah blah blah
This will be intersting to see what Greek scholar that you can come up with or go to that would have the crediblity to go against the 100s of Greek and Hebrew scholars that bring us the current scriptures.It would probably be “Jeff Benner” who has no formal Hebrew or Greek credentials but simply asserts his own method of translation which is ludicrous to say the least, since words can have different meanings so it would be foolish to force all Biblical words in scriptures to have only one meaning, of course his meaning. No language does that.
Surely they will not even come close to someone like the world renowned AT Roberston who gives us reall understanding as to why John 1:1 is translated the way it is.
John 1:1
In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1 . But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse Genesis 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Genesis 8:58 “before Abraham came (genesqai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence). The Word (o logo). Logo is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logo is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatiko logo for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23 . Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logo, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logo is applied to Christ only in John 1:1 John 1:14 ; Revelation 19:13 ; 1 John 1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Hebrews 4:12 . But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul ( 2 Corinthians 8:9 ; Philippians 2:6 ; Colossians 1:17 ) and in Hebrews 1:2 and in John 17:5 . This term suits John's purpose better than sopia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, verse John 14 ) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. With God (pro ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pro with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of pro: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton ecomen pro ton patera). See proswpon pro proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12 ), a triple use of pro. There is a papyrus example of pro in this sense to gnwston th pro allhlou sunhqeia, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pro here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. And the Word was God (kai qeo hn o logo). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeo hn o logo. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logo and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logo) and the predicate without it (qeo) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeo can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 o qeo agaph estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logo sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was ete
rnally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. AT RobertsonOr how about the words of 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts called the to bring us the NET Bible?
Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
This is why the “Arians” do not have their own version (except the JWs NWT) but simply try to discredit the given translations that we have by twisting and manipulating the text when they know nothing about Biblical Hebrew and Greek translation.
WJ
Here is Origens take on John 1:1.
It is said that he knew the languages of his day (late 100s – early 200s) quite well.
He wrote this before the Trinity Doctrine was invented, or at least before it was established as a major doctrine with the backing of the Roman Emperor.
“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article [“the”], and in some he omits it. He adds the article [“the”] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [“the”], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article [“the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article [“the”] not without it, so also “the” logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence “the” logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos.
Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D)
Ignatius, who is Theophorus, to the Church which has received grace through the greatness of the Father Most High. (Third Epistle).
I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. (To the Tarsians, II).
And that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things”. And again, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (To the Tarsians, IV).
And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. And again, “When all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Wherefore it is One [God] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [His Son] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former]. (To the Tarsians, V; cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28).
How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.
(To the Tarsians, VI).Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200)
The nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most powerful, and most noble, and most kingly, and most esteemed. This is the highest excellence, which orders all things in accordance with the Father's will.
(Stromata, Book VII, 2).Those, then, who choose to belong to him, are those who are perfected through faith. He, the Son, is, by the will of the Almighty Father, the cause of all good things….being, then, the Father's power
(Stromata, Book VII, 2).The Son is the power of God, as being the Father's most ancient Word before the making of all things.
(Stromata, Book VII, 2).Now the energy of the Lord has a relationship to the Almighty, and the Son is, so to speak, an energy of the Father.
(Stromata, Book VII, 2).The One Only Almighty, Good God from eternity to eternity saving by His Son.
(Stromata, Book VII, 2).He is the true only-begotten, the express image of the glory of the Universal King and Almighty Father…. [the only-begotten] the Second Cause.
(Stromata, Book VII, 3; Clement shortly after refers to the Father as the “First Cause”).There was a man/alien called martian. He wrote this in the 2010s.
He said that Jesus started his existence not in the form of God and emptying himself and coming in the form of man, but as a man who was created in the womb of Mary alone. He didn't think that the definite articles in Greek had any significance in John 1:1.
He said this with authority even though he knew that he didn't know Greek.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2010,15:58) “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos.
Yes t8Origen was an “Arian” and considered a Heretic because of teachings like the following…
After his return from Athens, he succeeded in converting Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, from his adoptionistic (i.e., belief that Jesus was born human and only became divine after his baptism) views to the orthodox faith; yet in these very years (about 240) probably occurred the attacks on Origen's own orthodoxy which compelled him to defend himself in writing to Pope Fabian and many bishops. Neither the source nor the object of these attacks is known, though the latter may have been connected with Novatianism (a strict refusal to accept Christians who had denied their faith under persecution). Wiki
Little wonder of his treatment of John 1:1, by turnining the text to meaning “The Word was Divine”.
The definite article not being present with John 1:1c argument is a red herring because there are many many times the word God in refering to the Father does not have the article present.
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2010,16:00) Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D) Ignatius, who is Theophorus, to the Church which has received grace through the greatness of the Father Most High. (Third Epistle).
I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. (To the Tarsians, II).
And that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things”. And again, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (To the Tarsians, IV).
And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. And again, “When all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Wherefore it is One [God] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [His Son] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former]. (To the Tarsians, V; cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28).
How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.
(To the Tarsians, VI).
t8It seems a little dishonest to quote “Ignatius” from the spurious writings.
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2010,16:10) There was a man/alien called martian. He wrote this in the 2010s. He said that Jesus started his existence not in the form of God and emptying himself and coming in the form of man, but as a man who was created in the womb of Mary alone. He didn't think that the definite articles in Greek had any significance in John 1:1.
He said this with authority even though he knew that he didn't know Greek.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
