Origen's understanding of John 1:1

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2013,05:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2013,14:41) t8, is Jesus a god – according to many scriptures?  YES or NO? Quote (t8 @ April 08 2013,20:51) Technically speaking “Jesus is theos”, not “a theos”. John 1:18 NWT 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. In the above verse, is Jesus being called “a god”?  Or is he being called “God-like”? Hebrews 1:8 NIV But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever………” How about in this verse?  Is Jesus identified as “a god”? Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2013,14:41) Is Satan the god of this world?  Or did Paul mean Satan was the “God-like one of this world”?  Which one? Quote (t8 @ April 08 2013,20:51) The God of this age is identified here because the definite article is used. So it is talking about a specific individual who is the actual God of this Age…….. Much like the definite article used in John 1:18?  Or the definite article in John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus “the lord of me and the god of me”? But okay, tell me what it means to you that Satan is a god.  Does it mean he is a “mighty one who rules over others”?  That definition of “god” works for me (and the entire scriptures).  Does it work for you?

Mike

Right, but I would like to point out ,what was the message that the apostle John by writhing his gospel to con vey in his first two chapters

Was not the entire gospel made to testify about
Jesus Christ ,that he was the messiah send as promised by God his father???Yes,
Did John not explain how this happen ,??? Yes

I understood that John was showing the glory of God almighty through his messiah by fulfilling all the scriptures ,

For those reason it does not make sens to deviate John,s word,s to make them mean other things than what he really meant,about Jesus Christ ,

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2013,13:47)

John 1:18 NWT 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. In the above verse, is Jesus being called “a god”?  Or is he being called “God-like”?

In English we may understand that he is being called 'a god', but technically speaking, he is being called THE God if that translation is correct. And which God is that? The begotten one.

However, this verse is controversial because some translations say 'begotten son'. But probably not worth spending too much time on this one as it will result in less time for the other questions. But for now, I looked it up here and the word 'theos' is not used. Rather 'ho monogenEs
huios'.

So at this stage, I don't know why so many translations say, 'begotten god'. Perhaps this has already been discussed and you can enlighten me.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf

Regardless, the definite article is being used.

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ April 09 2013,00:48)

Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2013,12:34) Quote (terraricca @ April 08 2013,05:14) Kerwin Quote Note: I am not advancing the teaching that Jesus was there at creation but I am pointing out that vagueness of Hebrew allows for more than one god. but in this message you just nullify the total scriptures and all the work of the holy spirit to bring us the scriptures today,and you think you are right T, I am just going by what is written.  I do not believe the teaching even though it is based on one possible literal translation of Scripture. Kerwin so you have only fun ,but you do not share what you have come to understand in scriptures just pick up anything that you find and let see type a thing ? this does not add up my friend ,

T,

It is one result of using problem solving in order to place Jesus at the first creation as recorded in Genesis 1:1. The gods also stated “us” in some places.

In the beginning the gods created the heaven and the earth is allowed for in Hebrew.

You have advanced the hypothesis that Jesus is a god.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2013,13:47)

Much like the definite article used in John 1:18?  Or the definite article in John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus “the lord of me and the god of me”?

Yes the definite article again. John 20:28 is interesting because there is a double definite article which could well mean that Thomas was speaking to 2 specific individuals. Jesus and God. Some argue that if Thomas was just talking about Jesus, then why use 2 definite articles when he could just us the one. i.e., 'The lord and god of me'. Instead of what he actually said which was, 'The Lord and the God of me'.

Regardless of whether Thomas was referring to Jesus alone or Jesus and God, the definite article is definitely there.

Greek has no indefinite article, so it is possible that saying 'a god' is closer to saying 'the God' In English than it is 'god'. When we say, 'a god' we are singling out a particular god, although we are not identifying that god. The definite article is used to single out a particular individual also, so perhaps that is why they don't have the indefinite article. If that was the case, then Trinitarians could argue that using 'a god' sways more toward 'the Word was the theos' than the 'Word was theos', (in concept).

I think it would be good to delve into the workings of Greek more. If this was the case, then saying that the Word was a god, could well be closer to saying, the Word was the God to a Greek speaker. I do know someone who speaks Greek fluently, I wish he was here so I could ask him.

Also, we criticize the idea of applying the idea of reading John 1:1c as 'the Word was THE God', even though the definite article is not there. But should the same criticism be leveled at 'a god' as well. After all that is also not there technically speaking.

In the end I think it boils down to how a Greek speaker understands it. If I say “the Amazon is river”, is that closer to saying, “the Amazon is the River”, “the Amazon is river in nature”, or “the Amazon is a river”. Does a Greek speaker (particularly ancient Greek) think “a river” or just “river”?

[Proclaimer]

In English we often use 'a' to single out something. But this can also be done with 'the'. So perhaps why Greek doesn't need 'a'.

E.g., t8 is a person. Mike is a person.
t8 is the person. Mike is the person.

t8 and mike are persons/people. See that. I didn't need the indefinite article because I did not single anyone out.

So is John 1:1c to be read as singling out the Word as a particular God? Or is it just saying that the Word was theos just as t8 & Mike are persons/people?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ April 09 2013,20:38)

Thanks Mike. I feel like we will cover much more ground and learn stuff compared to debating those who just regurgitate the same stuff. This is kinda what I prefer.

Fantastic.  

Quote (t8 @ April 09 2013,20:38)

Before I start to reply, I should first just say that I do not follow what you are saying in the last paragraph in the last post.

My point is that you seem to accept men, angels, and Satan as “gods” in scripture………….. but you seem very hesitant to acknowledge that Jesus, the second most powerful being in existence, can also be “a god”.

Why is that?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (terraricca @ April 09 2013,21:20)

For those reason it does not make sens to deviate John,s word,s to make them mean other things than what he really meant,about Jesus Christ ,

Agreed. That's why I don't do that.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ April 10 2013,01:58)

In English we may understand that he is being called 'a god', but technically speaking, he is being called THE God if that translation is correct. And which God is that? The begotten one.

Kathi recently pointed out the obvious fact that anyone who is called “THE god” in any context, must, by necessity be “A god”.  If you are not “A god” in the first place, you will never be called “THE god” of anything.

For example, Jehovah is THE God of Israel.  Well, He can't be that UNLESS He is A god in the first place.  Agreed?

Similarly, Satan could not be THE god of this age unless he is A god to begin with.

Nor could Jesus be THE only begotten god unless he is A god to begin with.

Quote (t8 @ April 10 2013,01:58)

However, this verse is controversial because some translations say 'begotten son'.  Perhaps this has already been discussed and you can enlighten me.

Yes, this one is controversial – and it has been discussed.  This is a rather lengthy explanation from NETNotes – but it is worth the read IMO:

The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (monogenes son).

Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός (monogenes god) is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc.

The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading.

The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός (monogenes god).

Internally, although υἱός (son) fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός (god) as the older and more difficult reading is preferred.

Preferred by whom, you might ask.    At any rate, I've learned from reading the NET Bible that scholars always favor the harder reading.  Their thinking is that it makes much more sense for a scribe to alter a hard reading, making it easier.  (This is attested by all the marginal notes that scribes have left on older mss – trying to “explain” what is meant by the hard wording to others.)

So it is easy to understand how a scribe who read “monogenes god” would alter it (since only one letter distinguished the two) to “monogenes son” – because “monogenes son” is an expression that John used elsewhere in his writings.

I also think it is sensible that the oldest mss would have the more accurate reading, don't you?

In the case of John 1:18, the older and harder reading is “god” – not “son”.  But I agree that there is no way to be sure, and so I won't force this one scripture upon you to prove my point.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ April 10 2013,15:46)

Also, we criticize the idea of applying the idea of reading John 1:1c as 'the Word was THE God', even though the definite article is not there. But should the same criticism be leveled at 'a god' as well. After all that is also not there technically speaking.

Well, all you have to do is go through the entire scriptures, and every time you read the English article “a”, swap it out with “the”.  See how that works for ya.    (There are over 7000 times we add “a” into the scriptures, because the original languages did not use an indefinite article, and we do.)

I have more to say about this, but I don't want to hit you with everything at once.

Look at John 1:6.  In English, it says “there was A man sent from God, whose name was John.”  In Greek, it says “came man sent from God name of him John.”

Do YOU think John the Baptist was A man?  Or do you think he was “man-like”?  I assume this will be easy for you, and you won't even have to think twice before saying John was A man, right?

There are 7000 more instances just like that – where we in English add the indefinite article, because they didn't use one in Hebrew or Greek.

So adding an indefinite article, when needed, is not the same as adding the definite article – because both Hebrew and Greek used a definite article.  That means they could have written the definite article into the original if the verse was supposed to have one.

See how this differs from the indefinite article, which they DIDN'T use?

t8, picture a Russian immigrant, who speaks English poorly because it is his second language.  He will say, “Today, I go to buy car.”  In proper English, we would add the indefinite article to his statement, because we know he is going to buy A car.  We must do the same with Hebrew and Greek.  And we can't just do it 7000 times but then decide NOT to do it with John 1:1 – simply because we:

A.  Want the Word to also be THE God, not “a god”.

B.  Don't like the idea that Jesus is a “lesser god” – because we've been duped into believing the lie that there exists literally only one god.

Face it, Jehovah could not possibly be “the Most High God” if there existed no “lesser gods” like Jesus and Satan.

[mikeboll64]

t8,

Do you believe Hebrews 1:8 refers to Jesus as “a god”?

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ April 10 2013,21:21)

Quote (terraricca @ April 09 2013,00:48) Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2013,12:34) Quote (terraricca @ April 08 2013,05:14) Kerwin Quote Note: I am not advancing the teaching that Jesus was there at creation but I am pointing out that vagueness of Hebrew allows for more than one god. but in this message you just nullify the total scriptures and all the work of the holy spirit to bring us the scriptures today,and you think you are right T, I am just going by what is written.  I do not believe the teaching even though it is based on one possible literal translation of Scripture. Kerwin so you have only fun ,but you do not share what you have come to understand in scriptures just pick up anything that you find and let see type a thing ? this does not add up my friend , T, It is one result of using problem solving in order to place Jesus at the first creation as recorded in Genesis 1:1.  The gods also stated “us” in some places. In the beginning the gods created the heaven and the earth is allowed for in Hebrew. You have advanced the hypothesis that Jesus is a god.

Kerwin

Jesus his son of the GOD ALMIGHTY , think just a little ,would you dough to say that the son of a king his a king in waiting

for the father as to die so he can become king ,

but what is it with Christ ,he will never outlive his father ,so yes Jesus the son of God almighty his a god ,he is the first in line after the father ,

that is what scriptures are saying

[kerwin]

T,

Jesus' relationship to Jehovah, angels, men, and beast is Heir. It is because of this likeness and others he is called the Son.

Jehovah does not beget sons as his creations do.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2013,06:21)

t8, Do you believe Hebrews 1:8 refers to Jesus as “a god”?

Mike,

ho, translated O is the definite article.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2013,13:54)

Kathi recently pointed out the obvious fact that anyone who is called “THE god” in any context, must, by necessity be “A god”.  If you are not “A god” in the first place, you will never be called “THE god” of anything. For example, Jehovah is THE God of Israel.  Well, He can't be that UNLESS He is A god in the first place.  Agreed? Similarly, Satan could not be THE god of this age unless he is A god to begin with. Nor could Jesus be THE only begotten god unless he is A god to begin with.

But is that not the point I make?

That if Satan is the God of this world, then yes he is a god as well to an English speaker at least. And if the “Word is THE theos”, then the “Word is a god”, yes. However, the Word is theos. There is no article at all.

To read it as 'the Word was a god', would it not have to say that the Word was THE God?

As for that verse, 'THE only begotten god', I think that needs its own topic in Scripture and Biblical Teaching if it is not already there. However, we can still discuss it here, but might need to first thrash it out in the other topic before using it as a proof verse. At this stage I need to know why it doesn't appear in many Bibles and the Greek Text that I quoted you. However, if it says 'THE only begotten god', then yes it has the definite article.

It might also be worth asking why the Greeks do not have the indefinite article. It might be that they have no need for it as the definite article covers all bases. I mean, it would be good to know more about that for this discussion.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2013,13:22)

My point is that you seem to accept men, angels, and Satan as “gods” in scripture………….. but you seem very hesitant to acknowledge that Jesus, the second most powerful being in existence, can also be “a god”. Why is that?

Well if I am not sure that any angel or man can be called 'a god', then it would apply to Christ too. Certain collectives have men and angels as theos, but again without any article. If Christ is called “the God” somewhere, then I think that might lend itself to Christ being a god.

I guess to my English language way of thinking, Satan is a god as he is called the God of this age. But that is not a compliment of course.

[kerwin]

T8, Mike, and all,

Quote

n Ancient Greek there was no indefinite article.(1) Instead, the indefinite adjective τις, τις, τι (“a certain”) could be used in some cases where we use “a/an” in English, with its corresponding plural form τινές, τινές, τινά (some). The same word, as an indefinite pronoun, also meant “someone” and “anyone”. For completeness, I include the indefinite adjective ένιοι,-αι,-α, which also meant “certain”, “some” (in the plural sense only).

Here is my source.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ April 11 2013,03:44)

…….if Satan is the God of this world, then yes he is a god as well to an English speaker at least.

Are you implying that John the Baptist is not “a man” unless there is a scripture somewhere that calls him “the man”?

And Gabriel cannot be “an angel” unless some scripture identifies him as “the angel”?

That makes no sense to me at all, t8. But it seems like you're saying you'll only acknowledge Jesus as “A god” if it is said somewhere that he is “THE god”.

Okay. As Kerwin pointed out, Jesus is called “THE god” in Hebrews 1:8. Will you now accept that Jesus is a god?

[kerwin]

Quote (kerwin @ April 12 2013,01:08)

T8, Mike, and all, Quote n Ancient Greek there was no indefinite article.(1) Instead, the indefinite adjective τις, τις, τι (“a certain”) could be used in some cases where we use “a/an” in English, with its corresponding plural form τινές, τινές, τινά (some). The same word, as an indefinite pronoun, also meant “someone” and “anyone”. For completeness, I include the indefinite adjective ένιοι,-αι,-α, which also meant “certain”, “some” (in the plural sense only). Here is my source.

To all

Given this source is correct then John 1:1 should have said “the Word was certain god” if the writer desired to make it clear that the Word was “a god”. The same can be said that the writer would have written “”the Word was the god” if he wanted to make it clear that the Word was “the god”.

As t8 points out the Koine Greek has many definite articles but no indefinite ones which brings to light the question of why they were not used in certain cases when they could be.

[mikeboll64]

Kerwin,

The word “tis” is an “enclitic indefinite pronoun” – according to Strong's.  This is in line with the info you posted.  It is not the indefinite article “a”, which is probably why the NET Bible doesn't translate it as “a” one single time – out of the 448 times they translate it.

Here is the list of how they translate “tis”:

some 91, anyone 83, someone 54, one 25, anything 24, something 20, any 16, Some 9, a man 7, a certain 6, what 6, a person 4, anyone's 4, certain 4, several 3, whatever 3, a man's 2, Some people 2, some men 2, Someone 2, others 2, Whoever 2, any one 1, A man 1, A certain one 1, One of 1, A certain 1, Whatever 1, a kind 1, There 1, What 1, a single thing 1, man 1, somebody 1, some people's 1, some people 1, person 1, someone's 1, spoke out 1, who 1, where 1, to anyone 1, things 1, ones 1, one of them 1, with some 1, for some 1, for others 1, for any 1, of a certain 1, of some 1, one of 1, on some 1, of them 1, certain people 1

Now let's compare that with John 1:6, where we DO add an indefinite article:

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.

Do you think that we in English need the added “a” in that verse?  John the Baptist was indeed “a man”, right?

There are 448 instances of the pronoun “tis” in the NT…….. compared to THOUSANDS of times we have to add the indefinite article “a” into the Greek scriptures.  Comparing the pronoun “tis” to the indefinite article “a” is like comparing apples to oranges.

So are you willing to delete the thousands of added indefinite articles in the entire NT – just to avoid the Word being “a god” in John 1:1?

Because unless you ARE willing to delete every last one of them, you have no leg to stand on in the case of 1:1.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2013,18:26)

……the writer would have written “”the Word was the god” if he wanted to make it clear that the Word was “the god”.

Read up on “Colwell's Rule”.

[Author]

Posts