Origen's understanding of John 1:1

[Lightenup]

Mike,
I believe that having two words in the nominative case in one clause is very significant. The second word did not need to be in the nominative case because there already is a subject of the clause, but it is. You ought to study this in other verses. For instance, I found this one today:

Mark 15:39
NET Bible (©2006)
Now when the centurion, who stood in front of him, saw how he died, he said, “Truly this man was God's Son!”

From what I can tell, this last part that is bolded is similar to John 1:1c with 'this man' and 'God's Son' both being in the nominative case but 'God's Son' does not seem to have the article in the Greek.

With both in nominative case there is a sense of equivalence.
This man = God's Son
Now, is the centurion saying that this man has the qualities of a Son of God….OR is he identifying that this man is actually the Son of God.

I think that he is talking about identity and not quality here.

I agree that the NET translators have a bias but so do all of us, including you. I don't agree with their 'qualitative' conclusion though and I think it is based on their bias because they ruled out that the second 'theos' could not be a particular 'theos' because there could only be one particular 'theos' and that one is already mentioned in 1b, therefore, the 'theos' in 1c must not be another particular 'theos' since that would show two who were 'theos' and that threatens monotheism.

As you know, I don't believe that two who are each 'theos' threatens monotheism if the two are one as an eternal unity.

So, again, there are two different theos mentioned in John 1:1 and there are also two different theos mentioned in John 1:18. The first theos mentioned in John 1:18 does not have an article but I think that you would agree that it speaks of a particular theos as does the second theos mentioned as the only begotten theos.

Two particular theos are mentioned not only one:
John 1:18
New Living Translation (©2007)
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us.

English Standard Version (©2001)
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Neither 'God' is qualitative but both are about identity. One is unseen, the other is unique/the only begotten. Neither one is referring to the general quality of God.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2013,12:53)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 22 2013,00:18) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,18:02) t8, The Hebrew word ha-adam has the article 'ha' and refers to one person no matter what their proper name is. If the proper name is meant 'Adam' there is no 'ha' with it. That is what the article is saying. It is also saying that adam without the article refers to mankind in general. So 'the adam' can refer to Seth, or Noah, or Moses. True because THE Adam is identifying a particular man, whereas adam is not. Is that not what I have been saying all along now you have finally come around to my view. When I was talking about Adam the man, was I not giving an example and was the example wrong. No it was not. I was using Adam and Eve in particular to show how the definite article works. When talking about Adam the man we say THE Adam and when talking about mankind, we don't use the definite article. If you say it works equally as well for Seth or anyone else then thank you for that, because that supports what I have said, that it is a particular man and Seth and Noah are particular men. But it changes not my view that the definite article preceding adam or theos identifies rather than qualifies. However, I never thought to use that to identify Seth or Noah. So thanks for that. But it makes sense because it is just saying THE Man rather than mankind which I have taught all along. So if the Word was THE God, then it identifies the Word as God himself. But the text is not doing that even according to what you have just posted. So let's take your words: “It is also saying that adam without the article refers to mankind in general” And now apply this understanding to John 1:1 “It is also saying that theos without the article refers to 'theoskind' in general”. theoskind, godkind surely is talking about nature just as mankind is. That is why 'divine' works well. So yay, we made progress. How long did that take to admit that. You could have known this to be the case years ago if you weren't so obstinate. My guess is now that you have admitted that the lack of article means that John 1:1c, doesn't support your view anymore, will you do an about turn for prides sake? I would like to be proven wrong on this, but my heart tells me otherwise. t8, It seems to me, before this post of yours, you were making a case that said only the first man created and known as 'Adam' would be 'the adam' and nobody else. Do you deny this? Although you have admitted that Jesus is also 'the adam' as the second Adam.

t8?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2013,07:53)

t8, It seems to me, before this post of yours, you were making a case that said only the first man created and known as 'Adam' would be 'the adam' and nobody else. Do you deny this? Although you have admitted that Jesus is also 'the adam' as the second Adam.

I haven't specifically said that, but within the examples I have given I have stated as much.

What I have said is this:

adam = mankind
Adam (or THE Adam) = The man, meaning that it refers to a specific man.

devil = devils or those possessing the qualities of THE Devil.
Devil (the Devil) = Satan. A specific devil called Satan.

'man' made tools (mankind)
'the man' made tools (a specific man is being referred to, but who depends on the context)

Eve was adam
Adam was adam
Eve was not Adam (according to Genesis).

What I haven't said:

Eve is the Adam, anyone else is THE Adam.

And I mentioned in a recent post that I appreciated you pointing this out because I had not thought to use others as 'The Adam” in my examples even though I have said all along that it means, 'the man', a specific man.

So thanks because now I can give a wider set of examples.

For example, If 'THE Devil' is Satan, then it could potentially be another devil that is not Satan if the context was specifically talking about another devil.

Likewise, if 'The Adam' is Eve's husband, then 'the Adam' in future examples of mine could potentially include another person, perhaps even Eve, if the context was talking about that specific person.

Again thanks for this. I need to check it out of course to verify that I can include these other examples, but sounds right to me on the outset and agrees with what I proclaimed, that “the” identifies a specific thing. Like 'the' river is pointing to a specific river whereas river is talking about the nature of a river, e.g., rivers are pathways of water.

Further, I can also see that when scripture says, “THE God”, “The Man, or “The Devil”, by default it points to YHWH, Adam, and Satan. But I guess I need to include the possibility that if the context is talking about another theos, man, or devil, then yes it could well be specifically pointing to another, if you said the God, the man, the devil. And I have mentioned this many times too, that when the word 'THE Theos' is used, by default it is the Father, but that could change depending on context. e.g., Satan is 'THE Theos of this age'.

All up, these further examples do not change that the God in John 1:1 is the Father, and the Word who possesses the qualities of the Father is the origin of Jesus who came in the flesh.

As you have already agreed to, “It is also saying that adam without the article refers to mankind in general”, likewise, theos without the article can refer to Godkind in general.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (abe @ Mar. 24 2013,18:14)

Hi Mike, Gal.4:6   Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His   Son   into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Spirit of His SON. Can you explain?

Philippians 2:5
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus……..

God, though His Holy Spirit, has enabled some of us to have the same mentality, or “spirit”, that Jesus Christ displayed on earth.  This mentality, or “spirit”, causes us to humble ourselves to the glory of God, and will ultimately cause us to understand the nature of our one true Father in heaven.  (And no, just because I called God our “one TRUE father”, it does not mean our earthly fathers, or Abraham etc., are “false fathers”.)

Let's say you know a man who truly loves God and lives for Him.  You could say to your son, “I pray that God gives you the spirit of this man, so you too will understand the importance of living your life for God.”

I don't understand the verse you quoted as saying Jesus has his own “Holy Spirit” thing going on, and can send us his own “Holy Spirit” at will.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2013,18:22)

I don't agree with their 'qualitative' conclusion though and I think it is based on their bias because they ruled out that the second 'theos' could not be a particular 'theos' because there could only be one particular 'theos' and that one is already mentioned in 1b, therefore, the 'theos' in 1c must not be another particular 'theos' since that would show two who were 'theos' and that threatens monotheism.

No, the NET scholars are well aware of the “divine council”, and the fact that there are many gods taught in the scriptures.  Their conclusion can ONLY come from their personal desires to not have Jesus be just some other god who was with God.  Instead, they want to FORCE the teaching that Jesus was in all ways equal with, or part of, that other God who is mentioned in part b.

But you and I know the words John wrote don't really teach any such thing, right?

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2013,18:22)

As you know, I don't believe that two who are each 'theos' threatens monotheism if the two are one as an eternal unity.

Even your “eternal unity” consists of TWO separate gods, Kathi.  But don't worry about “monotheism”.  Neither the Israelites, nor the scriptures they recorded, are monotheistic.  That word comes from the Trinitarians, who want to insist that John 1:1 MUST BE talking about the Word AS the very God he was WITH, because there is “only one god!”.  But that is a lie, and you know it, right?

In other words, the whole “monotheistic” claim about the Bible has been inaccurate from the day it was made.  It was simply a flawed tool that the Trinitarians used to force Jesus into being the ONLY God – since he couldn't possibly be a DIFFERENT, LESSER god if they insist there is literally only ONE.

As for 1:18, it is up for grabs.  Certain important mss have “monogenes theos”, while other important mss have “monogenes huios”.  It's hard to argue that verse one way or the other.

Anyway, this thread is about Origen's understanding of John 1:1.  And the part of Origen's writing I'm up to is the part where he says “THE theos” in part b is the uncreated cause of all things.  That leaves the logos as a DIFFERENT theos, who is NOT “the uncreated cause of all things”.

Do you agree that John 1:1 speaks of TWO gods, one of whom was with the other?  YES or NO?

Do you agree that the theos in part b is “the uncreated cause of all things”?  YES or NO?

[Lightenup]

Ok, t8, you are welcome.

Quote

As you have already agreed to, “It is also saying that adam without the article refers to mankind in general”, likewise, theos without the article can refer to Godkind in general.

Actually, I don't think that the Greek word theos is used for godkind. That would be the Greek word theiotes:
Strongs #2305
theiotés: divinity, divine nature
Original Word: θειότης, ητος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: theiotés
Phonetic Spelling: (thi-ot'-ace)
Short Definition: divinity
Definition: divinity, divine nature.

That word is a noun and would be used rather than theos to have a 'quality' sense, imo.
Romans 1:20
English Standard Version (©2001)
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Or the Greek word theotes could be used to express deity essence:
Strongs # 2320
theotés: deity
Original Word: θεότης, ητος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: theotés
Phonetic Spelling: (theh-ot'-ace)
Short Definition: deity, Godhead
Definition: deity, Godhead.

Colossians 2:9
9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Please note:
This is interesting that says 'deity'(2320) differs from 'divinity,'(2305) as essence differs from quality or attribute.

Quote

STRONGS NT 2320: θεότης θεότης, θεότητος, ἡ (deitas, Tertullian, Augustine (de civ. Dei 7, 1)), deity i. e. the state of being God, Godhead: Colossians 2:9. (Lucian, Icar. 9; Plutarch, de defect. orac. 10, p. 415 c.) [SYNONYMS: θεότης, θειότης: θεότης deity differs from θειότης divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute; cf. Trench, § ii.; Lightfoot or Meyer on Colossians, the passage cited; Fritzsche on Romans 1:20.] godhead, deity From theos; divinity (abstractly) — godhead. see GREEK theos θεοτητος θεότητος theotetos theotētos theótetos theótētos Strong's Greek 2320 1 Occurrence θεότητος — 1 Occ. Colossians 2:9 N-GFS BIB: πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς NAS: the fullness of Deity dwells KJV: all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. INT: fullness of the Deity bodily 1 Occurrence

I still believe that John 1:1 which has theos mentioned twice and not indicating the same person, relates to John 1:18 which has theos mentioned twice and not indicating the same person. In other words:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the only begotten God.

Ignatius was a disciple of the writer of John 1:1 wrote this:

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
Shorter and Longer Versions

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy,819 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,820 worthy of being deemed holy,821 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ignatius refers to two who are both called God…the Father and the Son. See the bolded parts.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.html

[Lightenup]

Mike,
you asked:

Quote

Do you agree that John 1:1 speaks of TWO gods, one of whom was with the other? YES or NO?

Yes and they are one YHVH eternal unity together with their Spirit

Quote

Do you agree that the theos in part b is “the uncreated cause of all things”? YES or NO?

Both theos are together the uncreated cause of all things.

[abe]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2013,17:13)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 24 2013,18:14) Hi Mike, Gal.4:6   Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His   Son   into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Spirit of His SON. Can you explain? Philippians 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus…….. God, though His Holy Spirit, has enabled some of us to have the same mentality, or “spirit”, that Jesus Christ displayed on earth.  This mentality, or “spirit”, causes us to humble ourselves to the glory of God, and will ultimately cause us to understand the nature of our one true Father in heaven.  (And no, just because I called God our “one TRUE father”, it does not mean our earthly fathers, or Abraham etc., are “false fathers”.) Let's say you know a man who truly loves God and lives for Him.  You could say to your son, “I pray that God gives you the spirit of this man, so you too will understand the importance of living your life for God.” I don't understand the verse you quoted as saying Jesus has his own “Holy Spirit” thing going on, and can send us his own “Holy Spirit” at will.

Hi Mike,

(quote)
I don't understand the verse you quoted as saying Jesus has his own “Holy Spirit” thing going on, and can send us his own “Holy Spirit” at will.

Acts2:32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

RECEIVED from the FATHER

The PROMISED HOLY SPIRIT

RECEIVED FROM THE FATHER

THE PROMISED HOLY SPIRIT

God has sent forth the Spirit of His SON into our hearts, crying,”Abba! Father!”

You HAVE to see now.

Peace brother.

[Proclaimer]

Kathi, I am glad you brought up 'theiotes'. I looked at this some years back and want to revisit it.

[2besee]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2013,13:03)

As for your comment, I don't think it takes any amount of “scholary/Greek studies” to know that “the one God” cannot possibly be with “the one God”.  I think a kindergarten education should suffice to know this.

'There is ONE GOD, and one Mediator between God and Man, the MAN, Christ Jesus'.

That is one God.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2013,16:55)

Ignatius was a disciple of the writer of John 1:1 wrote this: The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans Shorter and Longer Versions Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy,819 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

The most logical thing to point out here is if Ignatius believes that the Father is God and Jesus is his son as attested in the second quoted paragraph, then Ignatius is obviously not saying that Jesus is God in the sense that I think you are hoping he is saying it, because if that were the case, he would be contradicting himself making him a double-minded man who is unstable in his way. Thus not an authority in scriptural understanding and not to be taken as an authority of any kind.

But I am pretty certain that he is using the word theos in ways that myself and Mike have been explaining to you, and not in a way that undermines his own teaching that he clearly spells out in the second paragraph you quoted.

We already know that theos refers to God, Jesus, Council containing men, angels, and even Satan. And if he was writing in Greek, then it appears that this follows the normal usage of theos. Thus if Jesus can say, “ye are theos”, then Ignatius can say, “Jesus is theos”. Either example is certainly not saying that Jesus is the Most High God YHWH or that any man is, but only a Trinitarian or some variation such as a Binitarian would say that Jesus is the Almighty God (YHWH) when reading such verses.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2013,16:55)

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,820 worthy of being deemed holy,821 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hi Kathi. Not sure what the point of this paragraph is because all your bolded text is referring to God and Jesus Christ together, so one is God and the other is Jesus Christ the son.

So this paragraph is in harmony with what we teach, i.e., Jesus is the son of God. And the Father of the son is God.

[2besee]

Quote (2besee @ Mar. 25 2013,16:28)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2013,13:03) As for your comment, I don't think it takes any amount of “scholary/Greek studies” to know that “the one God” cannot possibly be with “the one God”.  I think a kindergarten education should suffice to know this. 'There is ONE GOD, and one Mediator between God and Man, the MAN, Christ Jesus'. That is one God.

God is word and God is spirit, God is also LOVE.

One God.
Yes, even a kindergartener could see that — however, you want kindergarten kids to get confused.

“Unless you turn and become like Children, you will not see the kingdom of Heaven.”

Children TRUST their Father — Just as Jesus did.

I trust God, and what has been shown. I also trust in Jesus.

You trust in Scholars.

Well, okay!

[terraricca]

Quote (2besee @ Mar. 25 2013,09:28)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2013,13:03) As for your comment, I don't think it takes any amount of “scholary/Greek studies” to know that “the one God” cannot possibly be with “the one God”.  I think a kindergarten education should suffice to know this. 'There is ONE GOD, and one Mediator between God and Man, the MAN, Christ Jesus'. That is one God.

2bee

No ,that his two beings : one his God,the other his the mediator in between man and God, and that is Jesus the son of God,

You cannot tell a story from scripture by killing other scriptures,

All as to be true,if not you story is a lie

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2013,22:36)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2013,16:55) Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,820 worthy of being deemed holy,821 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Hi Kathi. Not sure what the point of this paragraph is because all your bolded text is referring to God and Jesus Christ together, so one is God and the other is Jesus Christ the son. So this paragraph is in harmony with what we teach, i.e., Jesus is the son of God. And the Father of the son is God.

Did you miss this:
“Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour;”

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2013,22:34)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2013,16:55) Ignatius was a disciple of the writer of John 1:1 wrote this: The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans Shorter and Longer Versions Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy,819 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. The most logical thing to point out here is if Ignatius believes that the Father is God and Jesus is his son as attested in the second quoted paragraph, then Ignatius is obviously not saying that Jesus is God in the sense that I think you are hoping he is saying it, because if that were the case, he would be contradicting himself making him a double-minded man who is unstable in his way. Thus not an authority in scriptural understanding and not to be taken as an authority of any kind. But I am pretty certain that he is using the word theos in ways that myself and Mike have been explaining to you, and not in a way that undermines his own teaching that he clearly spells out in the second paragraph you quoted. We already know that theos refers to God, Jesus, Council containing men, angels, and even Satan. And if he was writing in Greek, then it appears that this follows the normal usage of theos. Thus if Jesus can say, “ye are theos”, then Ignatius can say, “Jesus is theos”. Either example is certainly not saying that Jesus is the Most High God YHWH, but only a Trinitarian or some variation such as a Binitarian would say that.

Ignatius in other writings calls the Son, the eternal Word. Do you believe that the Son was the eternal Word, t8?

[2besee]

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 25 2013,16:42)

Quote (2besee @ Mar. 25 2013,09:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2013,13:03) As for your comment, I don't think it takes any amount of “scholary/Greek studies” to know that “the one God” cannot possibly be with “the one God”.  I think a kindergarten education should suffice to know this. 'There is ONE GOD, and one Mediator between God and Man, the MAN, Christ Jesus'. That is one God. 2bee No ,that his two beings : one his God,the other his the mediator in between man and God, and that is Jesus the son of God, You cannot tell a story from scripture by killing other scriptures, All as to be true,if not you story is a lie

T,

How many Gods do you see in that text? Is that text lying??

'There is ONE GOD, and one Mediator between God and Man, the MAN, Christ Jesus'.

That is one God and one Man.

Show me where I have gone wrong, T??

[Proclaimer]

No I didn't miss that.
But I saw the pattern and you did not.

Most High God + the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son + the Church

answers to:

Jesus Christ, + our God and Saviour; + the Church

And all the other mentions follow the pattern but do not include the Church, i.e., God and Jesus.

Sure it does mention Jesus first and if Ignatius did mean to say that Jesus is our theos, then when Jesus said ye are theos, he would surely have meant it in the same way, but not to describe the Almighty God. Again, if he did, then he is contradicting his own teaching and would be double minded and thus not an authority. However, I believe it is clear that he believed that there is one God the Father, and Jesus Christ his son. As he testifies here:

“Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son”

And so he likely uses theos not in the sense that we assign it to the Father. I think that if this is not the case, then he is contradicting himself.

So neither view supports you but supports the truth that the Father is the true God and that theos can still be used positively of others as scripture testifies and concordances confirm.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2013,17:47)

Ignatius in other writings calls the Son, the eternal Word. Do you believe that the Son was the eternal Word, t8?

Kathi, I am not sure what sense he was saying this because I would have to see the context. But for now, ask yourself, “do you have eternal life?”.

[Proclaimer]

Also ask yourself, if being brought forth in eternity means that you existed in all eternity?

[Author]

Posts