- This topic is empty.
- Posts
(2) He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos.
2) This part tells me that Origen believes “THE theos” of part b is the “uncreated cause of all things”, while “the Word” is NOT.
Kerwin, do you agree with Origen's assessment here? Do YOU believe that the god the Word was with is the “uncreated cause of all things”? Ie: Do you believe the “god” in part b is the Father God Almighty, Creator of the Universe?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 18 2013,18:40) Quote (abe @ Mar. 17 2013,11:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 16 2013,17:04) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,07:57) T8 and all, Adam was THE Adam is right.
Adam was adam is right.
Okay Kerwin,In the beginning was Cain. And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam.
Is this also correct?
ABE, this question is also for you.
Hi Mike,Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created
Jn.1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Before God created the word, what is the word?
Peace brother.
Abe,I believe I have a question awaiting an answer from you. AFTER you answer MY question, I'll happily answer yours.
peace,
mike
Hi Mike,I just answered your question.
Peace brother.
Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 15 2013,16:22) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 16 2013,01:54) Here we go again…article theology! John, a poor uneducated fisherman who, I doubt knew Greek well enough to write it, wrote as inspired by God. There are at least a couple of times in the first chapter of John that have theos without an article and Origen and those who agree with him would be having to back pedal to be consistent with their article theology, imo. For example:
John 1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
There is NO ARTICLE with theos, so does that mean John was sent by a god??? Do you see how this article theology fails merely 5 verses later?? Not only here, in this verse, but look at
John 1:18:
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
There is no article with the first theos, as a matter of fact, there IS an article with the second theos. So, now we have the reverse…if Origen' theory was true, the invisible God should be 'a god' and the verse would read like this:
No one has seen a god at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him.So, I don't know why this is still an argument.
It seems obvious as to what John is doing here if you realize that the Jews understood the 'Word of the LORD' as connected with the LORD in the OT. He was connecting the pre-flesh Jesus with that very 'Word of the LORD' that the Jews were SO FAMILIAR WITH, and with whom they called LORD and associated with the invisible LORD. The 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in visions was the image of the invisible LORD. Look at this story and notice that Abram called the Word of the LORD, 'YHVH'…the same 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in a vision. This was something that Abram SAW AND HEARD, not just heard.
Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
So, God is identifying the 'Word of the LORD' in the OT with the pre-flesh Jesus and goes on to further identify Him to the Word of the LORD in the OT by telling us that through Him all things were made. The LORD in the OT was often designated as the creator.
The 'Word' was the visible image of the invisible LORD, to the Jews and they called the Word, “LORD.'
Kathy
Jn1;6
did God almighty send John send
or was he send through someone that came to him from God almighty is this not what John said ,”that someone came and told him about how that he will recognized the Messiah
yesJN 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Jn 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.Jn 1:14 So the Word became human and lived here on earth among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father
it does not say the words of God became human (flesh)how can flesh or words from anyone make his living among the livings
?
terarricca,
In the OT angelic beings are sometimes used to deliver God's word to others and sometimes the message comes by one who is called the Word of the LORD and is called YHVH and calls Himself YHVH and He is seen, not just heard.In the OT, I believe the Son of God as the Word of the LORD is one of the Roots of Jesse and is called YHVH and calls Himself YHVH in Gen 15 as I have shown you.
In the NT, I believe the Son of God as the Shoot of Jesse, delivers the message of God.
Jesus is the Root and the Shoot.
you asked:
Quote it does not say the words of God became human (flesh)how can flesh or words from anyone make his living among the livings ?Jesus is not a written kind of word or a spoken kind of word, He is a kind of word that can be seen and claims that He is YHVH and is called YHVH. Gen 15.
Quote (abe @ Mar. 15 2013,21:33) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 15 2013,11:54) Here we go again…article theology! John, a poor uneducated fisherman who, I doubt knew Greek well enough to write it, wrote as inspired by God. There are at least a couple of times in the first chapter of John that have theos without an article and Origen and those who agree with him would be having to back pedal to be consistent with their article theology, imo. For example:
John 1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
There is NO ARTICLE with theos, so does that mean John was sent by a god??? Do you see how this article theology fails merely 5 verses later?? Not only here, in this verse, but look at
John 1:18:
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
There is no article with the first theos, as a matter of fact, there IS an article with the second theos. So, now we have the reverse…if Origen' theory was true, the invisible God should be 'a god' and the verse would read like this:
No one has seen a god at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him.So, I don't know why this is still an argument.
It seems obvious as to what John is doing here if you realize that the Jews understood the 'Word of the LORD' as connected with the LORD in the OT. He was connecting the pre-flesh Jesus with that very 'Word of the LORD' that the Jews were SO FAMILIAR WITH, and with whom they called LORD and associated with the invisible LORD. The 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in visions was the image of the invisible LORD. Look at this story and notice that Abram called the Word of the LORD, 'YHVH'…the same 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in a vision. This was something that Abram SAW AND HEARD, not just heard.
Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
So, God is identifying the 'Word of the LORD' in the OT with the pre-flesh Jesus and goes on to further identify Him to the Word of the LORD in the OT by telling us that through Him all things were made. The LORD in the OT was often designated as the creator.
The 'Word' was the visible image of the invisible LORD, to the Jews and they called the Word, “LORD.'
Hi LU,Gen.17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Peace sister……
Hi abe,
Jesus is the Root and the Shoot/seed (offspring).Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,05:11) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 16 2013,01:54) Here we go again…article theology! John, a poor uneducated fisherman who, I doubt knew Greek well enough to write it, wrote as inspired by God. There are at least a couple of times in the first chapter of John that have theos without an article and Origen and those who agree with him would be having to back pedal to be consistent with their article theology, imo. For example:
John 1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
There is NO ARTICLE with theos, so does that mean John was sent by a god??? Do you see how this article theology fails merely 5 verses later?? Not only here, in this verse, but look at
John 1:18:
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
There is no article with the first theos, as a matter of fact, there IS an article with the second theos. So, now we have the reverse…if Origen' theory was true, the invisible God should be 'a god' and the verse would read like this:
No one has seen a god at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him.
LU,What is these paragraphs is informative and expects the John to use theos consistently through his whole discourse. That seems to be a reasonable expectation.
Nevertheless there are not two Gods mentioned in John 1:1. There us instead 1 God and 2 Words. The first is God and the second is with God.
This is nothing that confuse anyone for there can be two bibles, one that is with the other, and yet they are the same word.
2 Words that are 1 in being God's.
kerwin,
You speak of the Word as if it were a possession and if that were so, it would be written in the genitive case (a Greek 'case' that speaks of something that is a possession), which it is not. The Word is a nominative cased word and the second nominative cased word in the third clause of John 1:1. When there are two nominative cased words in one clause, the true subject of the clause is designated by the 'article' 'the' and the other does not have an article. This is from what I have been told by a Greek teacher.So, in the clause:
the Word was God…
The Word is the subject and was is the verb and God is the predicate nominative. Predicate nominatives would be a good thing to study about.Read this in chapter 6, found here:
http://books.google.com/books?i….Q6AEwCQQuote (t8 @ Mar. 16 2013,22:31) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,03:57) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 16 2013,18:11)
It's not hard to understand.Without the article it is not identifying anyone, it is qualifying.
Eve was THE Adam is wrong.
Eve was adam is right.adam means man.
God created adam, male and female.
T8 and all,Adam was THE Adam is right.
Adam was adam is right.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the god, and the Word was god.
There was a man sent from god, whose name was John.
No one has seen god at any time
Jehovah is god. The Jehovah is god.
Adam was THE Adam is right.
Adam was adam is right.Correct.
One is talking about nature and the other identity.
Thus the Word is not identified as God that is the point.
This truth is little understood.
The truth is in knowledge of Greek grammar. The third clause of John 1:1 has two words written in the nominative case, one has the article (the Word) and the other doesn't (God). That has nothing to do with nature or identity. The word 'God' in the third clause does not have an article because it is not the subject of the third clause. Word is the subject of the third clause, but 'God' IS written in the nominative case also but as a predicate nominative and not the subject.t8 can't seem to acknowledge his lack of understanding of Greek grammar here. If anyone is interested in this, go read this one page in chapter 6 about the Basics of Biblical Greek found here:
http://books.google.com/books?i….Q6AEwCQThis 'article theology' argument falls flat on its back for two reasons:
1. It is inconsistent since there are two other verses in John 1 alone that have the word 'God' in them but NO ARTICLE and they refer to God who is unseen.2. The article is not there in order to indicate that 'God' is not the subject of the clause but instead-the predicate nominative. Go to the above link and get educated.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2013,21:23) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 15 2013,13:54) Here we go again…article theology!
Hi Kathi,I understand your point. “THE theos” is not ALWAYS identified with the article in scripture. But I think that John was trying to DISTINGUISH “THE theos” from a DIFFERENT “theos” in 1:1, and that is why he made sure he used the article for the theos that the Word was WITH.
Origen obviously understood John's use of the article “only sometimes” in 1:1 the same way as I do, right?
But there are many other good points in his writing – which is why I painstakingly broke it down in to snippets. I thought that we could then discuss agreements or disagreements with particular snippets – instead of discussing the entire, rather large writing all at once.
Take point #5, for example. What are your thoughts about that one?
Mike,
I am glad that you can see that I make a point. The point that I made destroys the foundation of the argument that Origen was building so I see no need to bother with the conclusions that he built on top of a foundation made of sand. Sorry.Read this about why the second 'theos' does not have an article…it is a matter of Greek grammar.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,17:26) Hi abe,
Jesus is the Root and the Shoot/seed (offspring).
Oh yeah, every time you say that you win the argument………………not.Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,17:52) This 'article theology' argument falls flat on its back for two reasons:
1. It is inconsistent since there are two other verses in John 1 alone that have the word 'God' in them but NO ARTICLE and they refer to God who is unseen.2. The article is not there in order to indicate that 'God' is not the subject of the clause but instead-the predicate nominative. Go to the above link and get educated.
LU, even many Trinitarian scholars agree that if it was implying that the Word was THE God even though for grammatical reasons it doesn't have THE, it still could not mean that the Word was God because if it did, it would be saying that to the detriment/exclusion of the Father.Irenaeus (ca. 185 A.D)
But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, he, namely, the only-begotten Son of the Only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men.
(Book I, 9).These [Apostles] have all declared to us that there is One God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not acknowledge these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord, and more, he despises Christ himself the Lord, and he even despises also the Father, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics..
(Book III, 1)Indeed, then, the Scripture declared, which says, “First of all believe that there is One God, who has established all things, and finished them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence.” He who contains all things, and is Himself contained by no one. Rightly also has Malachi said among the prophets, “Is it not One God who established us? Have we not all one Father?” Corresponding to this, too, does the apostle say, “There is One God, the Father, who is above all, and in us all.”
(Book IV, 20).Since, therefore, this is sure and established, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of sonship, that is, those who believe in the One and true God, and in Jesus Christ the Son of God, and likewise that the apostles did themselves term no one else as “God”, or name as Lord, and what is much more significant, that our Lord, who did also command us to confess no one as Father, except Him who is in the heavens, who is the One God and the one Father….Now to whom is it not clear, that if the Lord had known many fathers and gods, He would not have taught His disciples to know One God, and to call Him Alone Father. But He did the rather distinguish those who by word merely are termed gods, from Him who is truly God, that they should not err as to his doctrine, nor understand one for another. And if He did indeed teach us to call one Being Father and God, while he does from time to time himself confess other fathers and gods in the same sense, then he will appear to enjoin a different course upon His disciples from what He follows Himself. Such conduct, however, does not befit the good teacher, but a misleading and devious one. The apostles, too, according to these men’s showing, are proved to be transgressors of the commandment, since they confess the Creator as God, and Lord, and Father, as I have shown, if He is not Alone God and Father, Jesus, therefore, will be to them the author and teacher of such transgression, inasmuch as He commanded that One Being should be called Father, thus imposing upon them the necessity of confessing the Creator as their Father, as has been pointed out.
(Book IV, 1).About Irenaeus (Wikipedia)
He was an early Church Father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp, who in turn was traditionally a disciple of John the Evangelist.“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.t8, I thought that you were an Arian? The “Early Church Fathers” were not Arians but were Trinitarians. If you read their writings, you will get confused. I know that I did. They were inconsistent in what they wrote.
All that you need is in the scriptures — and then there are other writings which were considered canon by the earliest Church. Trust them.
Quote (2besee @ Mar. 19 2013,16:07) t8, I thought that you were an Arian? The “Early Church Fathers” were not Arians but were Trinitarians. If you read their writings, you will get confused. I know that I did. They were inconsistent in what they wrote. All that you need is in the scriptures — and then there are other writings which were considered canon by the earliest Church. Trust them.
2beesee,I do not even trust Scripture which has been in the hands of corrupt and ignorant men.
There is but one to trust.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2013,08:44) (2) He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. 2) This part tells me that Origen believes “THE theos” of part b is the “uncreated cause of all things”, while “the Word” is NOT.
Kerwin, do you agree with Origen's assessment here? Do YOU believe that the god the Word was with is the “uncreated cause of all things”? Ie: Do you believe the “god” in part b is the Father God Almighty, Creator of the Universe?
Mike,No, as theos is used to mean Jehovah in certain passages.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,01:48) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,17:26) Hi abe,
Jesus is the Root and the Shoot/seed (offspring).
Oh yeah, every time you say that you win the argument………………not.
t8,
Does that truth threaten your understanding or something?Instead of going to the trouble of just insulting me and exposing your weak character, why don't you challenge me with scripture? That would seem more productive, don't you think?
Also, if you are going to jump into a conversation between two people, you should at least read what the conversation is about and who is saying what. Your response might sound a little more intelligent that way. Just sayin'.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,01:51) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,17:52) This 'article theology' argument falls flat on its back for two reasons:
1. It is inconsistent since there are two other verses in John 1 alone that have the word 'God' in them but NO ARTICLE and they refer to God who is unseen.2. The article is not there in order to indicate that 'God' is not the subject of the clause but instead-the predicate nominative. Go to the above link and get educated.
LU, even many Trinitarian scholars agree that if it was implying that the Word was THE God even though for grammatical reasons it doesn't have THE, it still could not mean that the Word was God because if it did, it would be saying that to the detriment/exclusion of the Father.
The trinitarian's belief that the Son of God is very God of very God, doesn't do any detriment to the Father as God. This truth is made to the glory of the Father.Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,21:02) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,01:51) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 19 2013,17:52) This 'article theology' argument falls flat on its back for two reasons:
1. It is inconsistent since there are two other verses in John 1 alone that have the word 'God' in them but NO ARTICLE and they refer to God who is unseen.2. The article is not there in order to indicate that 'God' is not the subject of the clause but instead-the predicate nominative. Go to the above link and get educated.
LU, even many Trinitarian scholars agree that if it was implying that the Word was THE God even though for grammatical reasons it doesn't have THE, it still could not mean that the Word was God because if it did, it would be saying that to the detriment/exclusion of the Father.
The trinitarian's belief that the Son of God is very God of very God, doesn't do any detriment to the Father as God. This truth is made to the glory of the Father.
LU,The Trinitarian belief that Jesus is God accuses God of of being tempted by evil; even as humans are.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 20 2013,04:48) Does that truth threaten your understanding or something?
Well let's see. Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. Jesus is also the offspring of David. No Binity here Kathi.So that would be a no Kathi.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
