Origen&#39;s understanding of John 1:1

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,13:33)

How many Greek classes have you taken, t8? You have a friend that says the lack of the article is significant. So why is that a support for your theology? Significant doesn't mean less than. Maybe your friend doesn't know about predicate nominative. Maybe you should show him what I linked you to. That was a scholar, a TEACHER of GREEK. He supports what I am telling you.

Kathi, it is common knowledge that the definite article is significant in Greek. It is even significant in English, but more so in Greek. They didn't have capital letters, that is what the definite article does to God for example. God in English is the god in Greek. While god in Greek equates to divine or gods nature or council in English. Of course if the context is false theos then context is everything.

Same with devil and the Devil. Clearly significant in English right? Judas was devil according to Jesus. But Jesus did not say that he was the devil right?

So there you have it. Accept it or remain in ignorance. Check it out for yourself. There is plenty on this subject out there for you to research. And you can do the English examples yourself because that is what you speak right?

March 22, 2013 at 2:05 am#339010

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,19:39)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,10:19)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,06:13)

Certainly there is the reference that THE God is greater than the Word.

Please show us this reference.

Well, Jesus is called “the Word of God” because he is God's spokesman, right? So who is greater Kathi, the spokesman, or the king for whom he speaks?

Not to mention all the other scriptures that distinguish Jesus as lesser than his own God. (The fact that Jesus even HAS a God of his own should tell you that his God is greater than he is. )

The Father is greater because of being the Father, not necessarily because He is the more powerful or wise of the two. What one has, the other has.

Which one was the greater man? The Father or the Son? Obviously the answer would be the Son because the Father never became a man.
Which one was the greater son? The Father or the Son?
Obviously the answer would be the Son since the Father never was a son.
Which one was/is the greater High Priest? The Father or the Son?
Obviously the answer would be the Son since the Father never was a High Priest.

So, the Son being greater in all those instances has nothing to do with who is more mighty. They can both be the same 'might' but the Son is greater in all those things. Likewise, the Father and Son can both be the same 'might' but the Father is greater in position since He is the Father and begetter. Position is not about 'might.'

March 22, 2013 at 2:07 am#339011

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,15:31)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 19 2013,22:42)

Hi Mike,

In the beginning was Cain. And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam.

The only way Cain was Adam is past tense.

Past? present? Future?

Could it be that since mankind itself is called “adam” in Hebrew, the statement could mean that Cain was with THE Adam (the original man), and Cain was also AN adam (a member of mankind)?

Because this is what I'm looking for, Abe. I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”.

Can you see this?

Hi Mike,

Yes, Were not making new lingo are we?

Peace brother..

March 22, 2013 at 2:12 am#339012

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,20:51)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,19:40)

Is http://www.bible.cc working for you tonight? It's not working for me for some reason.

Is that Biblos.com? I don't know any site by the name “bible.cc”. If you are referring to Biblos, then yes, it is working for me. That's where I located the Exodus scripture.

Yes Mike,
http://www.bible.cc is http://www.biblos.com.
I tried http://www.biblos.com and it works and when I put in John 1 1, it changed to http://www.bible.cc in the address bar.

Both are working for me now. I have become dependent on that site!

Thanks!

March 22, 2013 at 2:18 am#339015

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,20:49)

I found this from another Hebrew site that says that the word 'adam' with the article would never refer to the person with the proper name of 'Adam.' The article in Hebrew is 'ha' and HaAdam is adam with the article.

Quote

Appendix 3:
'Adam' and Hebrew Grammar
Eth

'Eth' is put before the object of the sentence if the object is either a definite noun (has article 'ha') or a proper noun (proper name).

Example:
Jim ate the bread.
'Jim' is the subject, the doer of the action.
Bread is the object of the action.

Eth adam 'Adam' is the proper name of one person, refers to the person whose name is 'Adam'.

Ha-adam

Life form(s). Example: Human beings.

If Adam stands for 'life form', then one can put 'ha' in front.

If 'Adam' is a proper name, one cannot say 'ha-adam'.
In other words, 'ha-adam' does not refer to a person named 'Adam'.

Eth ha-adam The life form is the object of the sentence. The life forms are the object of the sentence.

From: http://www.solhaam.org/articles/genevo.html

That really flies in the face of t8's article theology with his use of 'the Adam' to mean the person named Adam.

This is something that needs further investigation.

t8,
The 'appendix 3' in the quote box here agrees that the article is significant but its significance disagrees with your application of it. The quote says that adam with the article would not refer to the person with the proper name of Adam.

If that is correct, then your arguments about 'adam' and 'the Adam' are erroneous.

March 22, 2013 at 2:24 am#339017

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (abe @ Mar. 21 2013,20:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,15:31)

I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”.

Can you see this?

Hi Mike,

Yes….

Fantastic!

So then the phrase, “the word was with THE god, and the word was god” could also simply mean that the word was “a god” who was with “THE God”, right? Just like in the case of the “adam” who was with “THE Adam”, right?

March 22, 2013 at 2:49 am#339021

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,18:24)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 21 2013,20:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,15:31)

I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”.

Can you see this?

Hi Mike,

Yes….

Fantastic!

Hi Mike,

Yes it does. I also think The word was God. Meaning Before the Word was created. The Word Was God.

Jn.1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

This verse SEALED it.

Peace brother…

March 22, 2013 at 3:15 am#339024

Participant

Hi abe. Would it not be more accurate to say that the Word that was with God was once in God or an attribute of God. Likewise, Wisdom that was the workman with God that was given birth, was an attribute of God. And just as a flame lights another flame, and doesn't lessen the first flame, so it is with the giving birth of Wisdom and the bringing forth of the Word.

Saying that the Word was THE God is excluding the Father from being God and it is also saying that the Word use to be God, but changed to the Word. So what happened to God?

March 22, 2013 at 3:34 am#339027

terraricca

Participant

Quote (abe @ Mar. 22 2013,08:49)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,18:24)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 21 2013,20:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,15:31)

I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”.

Can you see this?

Hi Mike,

Yes….

Fantastic!

Hi Mike,

Yes it does. I also think The word was God. Meaning Before the Word was created. The Word Was God.

Jn.1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

This verse SEALED it.

Peace brother…

abe

why is it so complicated think a little if I was not born ,would i be in my father in reality NO, in allegorically yes,

anything that is created ,WAS NOT THERE AND I MEAN ANYWHERE BEFORE IT WAS CREATED ,

YOU MAY JUST SAY THE MINERAL ORE IN 2010, AS MY FORD PICKUP MODEL 2013 IN IT ;

GOD MADE THE SON ,SO BEFORE HE WAS MADE THE SON DID NOT EXIST ,THAT SIMPLE ,

THE SON IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN THAT GOD CREATED DIRECTLY

ALL OTHER THINGS WHERE CREATED THROUGH HIM,THIS IS TRUE

NOW DO NOT MISS UNDERSTAND ME ,BECAUSE ALL WHAT AS BEEN CREATED CAME FROM THE FATHER ,THIS IS ALSO OBVIOUS ,BECAUSE HE STARTED FROM NOTHING BUT HIMSELF

THINK IT THIS WAY ASSUME THAT I CAN CREATE I AM A MAN AND TAKE SOME OF MY FLESH OR BETTER STEM CELL AND MADE IT INTO A MONKEY,SO WOULD YOU SAY “I AM “A MONKEY OF CAUSE NOT,

BUT NOW I WILL CREATE MORE BUT NOW I DO NOT TAKE MY STEM CELL I TAKE THE MONKEY ONE ,MY FIRST CREATION, SO NOW I MAKE A DOG WITH IT ,NOW IS THE MONKEY A DOG

OR AM I A DOG OF CAUSE NOT AND SO ON,EVERY SINGLE CREATION I MADE WOULD END UP AN INDIVIDUAL TOTALLY SEPARATED FROM ME ,

BUT I WILL REMAIN THE POWERFUL ONE KNOWING HOW TO REMOVE THEIR LIFE IF I HAVE TO,

March 22, 2013 at 3:39 am#339028

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,16:18)

If that is correct, then your arguments about 'adam' and 'the Adam' are erroneous.

Kathi, you can always google a view and get the support you need.

Read Genesis 1:26 the word man does not have the definite article so it means mankind as a whole.
In Genesis 2:7, the word man has the definite article and particle (eth-ha adham) and means the man Adam.

Genesis 1:26
6 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Genesis 2:7
7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

So if you had to guess which one was Adam the man and which was mankind, then you would see clearly how the definite article identifies a particular man, while the lack of one talks about man in general.

Not convinced, then look it up.
Genesis 1:26
Genesis 2:7

March 22, 2013 at 3:43 am#339029

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,19:15)

Saying that the Word was THE God is excluding the Father from being God and it is also saying that the Word use to be God, but changed to the Word. So what happened to God?

Hi T8,

Would you say; In the Wisdom God created ? I think it is quite plain Wisdom is the Beginning of creation.

Peace brother.

March 22, 2013 at 4:02 am#339034

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,22:39)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,16:18)

If that is correct, then your arguments about 'adam' and 'the Adam' are erroneous.

Kathi, you can always google a view and get the support you need.

Genesis 2:7
7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Not convinced, then look it up.
Genesis 1:26
Genesis 2:7

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.

March 22, 2013 at 4:17 am#339036

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 21 2013,19:34)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 22 2013,08:49)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,18:24)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 21 2013,20:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,15:31)

I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”.

Can you see this?

Hi Mike,

Yes….

Fantastic!

Hi Mike,

Yes it does. I also think The word was God. Meaning Before the Word was created. The Word Was God.

Jn.1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

This verse SEALED it.

Peace brother…

abe

why is it so complicated think a little if I was not born ,would i be in my father in reality NO, in allegorically yes,

anything that is created ,WAS NOT THERE AND I MEAN ANYWHERE BEFORE IT WAS CREATED ,

YOU MAY JUST SAY THE MINERAL ORE IN 2010, AS MY FORD PICKUP MODEL 2013 IN IT ;

GOD MADE THE SON ,SO BEFORE HE WAS MADE THE SON DID NOT EXIST ,THAT SIMPLE ,

THE SON IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN THAT GOD CREATED DIRECTLY

ALL OTHER THINGS WHERE CREATED THROUGH HIM,THIS IS TRUE

NOW DO NOT MISS UNDERSTAND ME ,BECAUSE ALL WHAT AS BEEN CREATED CAME FROM THE FATHER ,THIS IS ALSO OBVIOUS ,BECAUSE HE STARTED FROM NOTHING BUT HIMSELF

THINK IT THIS WAY ASSUME THAT I CAN CREATE I AM A MAN AND TAKE SOME OF MY FLESH OR BETTER STEM CELL AND MADE IT INTO A MONKEY,SO WOULD YOU SAY “I AM “A MONKEY OF CAUSE NOT,

BUT NOW I WILL CREATE MORE BUT NOW I DO NOT TAKE MY STEM CELL I TAKE THE MONKEY ONE ,MY FIRST CREATION, SO NOW I MAKE A DOG WITH IT ,NOW IS THE MONKEY A DOG

OR AM I A DOG OF CAUSE NOT AND SO ON,EVERY SINGLE CREATION I MADE WOULD END UP AN INDIVIDUAL TOTALLY SEPARATED FROM ME ,

BUT I WILL REMAIN THE POWERFUL ONE KNOWING HOW TO REMOVE THEIR LIFE IF I HAVE TO,

Hi T,

(quote)
anything that is created ,WAS NOT THERE AND I MEAN ANYWHERE BEFORE IT WAS CREATED ,

Word OF God.

Jer,1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Ps.139:16 Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me , When as yet there was none of them.

Peace brother…

March 22, 2013 at 4:22 am#339038

kerwin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,07:51)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,19:40)

Is http://www.bible.cc working for you tonight? It's not working for me for some reason.

Is that Biblos.com? I don't know any site by the name “bible.cc”. If you are referring to Biblos, then yes, it is working for me. That's where I located the Exodus scripture.

Mike,

It is the web address of biblos. It is working for me.

March 22, 2013 at 5:18 am#339047

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,18:02)

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.

March 22, 2013 at 5:23 am#339049

terraricca

Participant

Quote (abe @ Mar. 22 2013,10:17)

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 21 2013,19:34)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 22 2013,08:49)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,18:24)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 21 2013,20:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,15:31)

I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”.

Can you see this?

Hi Mike,

Yes….

Fantastic!

Hi Mike,

Yes it does. I also think The word was God. Meaning Before the Word was created. The Word Was God.

Jn.1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

This verse SEALED it.

Peace brother…

abe

why is it so complicated think a little if I was not born ,would i be in my father in reality NO, in allegorically yes,

anything that is created ,WAS NOT THERE AND I MEAN ANYWHERE BEFORE IT WAS CREATED ,

YOU MAY JUST SAY THE MINERAL ORE IN 2010, AS MY FORD PICKUP MODEL 2013 IN IT ;

GOD MADE THE SON ,SO BEFORE HE WAS MADE THE SON DID NOT EXIST ,THAT SIMPLE ,

THE SON IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN THAT GOD CREATED DIRECTLY

ALL OTHER THINGS WHERE CREATED THROUGH HIM,THIS IS TRUE

NOW DO NOT MISS UNDERSTAND ME ,BECAUSE ALL WHAT AS BEEN CREATED CAME FROM THE FATHER ,THIS IS ALSO OBVIOUS ,BECAUSE HE STARTED FROM NOTHING BUT HIMSELF

THINK IT THIS WAY ASSUME THAT I CAN CREATE I AM A MAN AND TAKE SOME OF MY FLESH OR BETTER STEM CELL AND MADE IT INTO A MONKEY,SO WOULD YOU SAY “I AM “A MONKEY OF CAUSE NOT,

BUT NOW I WILL CREATE MORE BUT NOW I DO NOT TAKE MY STEM CELL I TAKE THE MONKEY ONE ,MY FIRST CREATION, SO NOW I MAKE A DOG WITH IT ,NOW IS THE MONKEY A DOG

OR AM I A DOG OF CAUSE NOT AND SO ON,EVERY SINGLE CREATION I MADE WOULD END UP AN INDIVIDUAL TOTALLY SEPARATED FROM ME ,

BUT I WILL REMAIN THE POWERFUL ONE KNOWING HOW TO REMOVE THEIR LIFE IF I HAVE TO,

Hi T,

(quote)
anything that is created ,WAS NOT THERE AND I MEAN ANYWHERE BEFORE IT WAS CREATED ,

Word OF God.

Jer,1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Ps.139:16 Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me , When as yet there was none of them.

Peace brother…

abe

you really do not show me anything ,tell me before God even want to create anyone ,was he forced to know anything about his own behavior ?

God decided to create then and only then he knows what ,how ,where ,and whom will be part of the creation ,

you quoting me scriptures but do not really think on them to understand them and what they say,

Quote

Word OF God.

Jer,1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Ps.139:16 Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me , When as yet there was none of them.

Peace brother…

Jer,1;5 DNA ?
Ps 139;16 does he talk about DNA

OR;

Ps 138:8 The LORD will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.

WAS THE WRITER TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE TO COME OTHER THAN HIMSELF

WHAT YOU THINK,???

March 22, 2013 at 6:01 am#339052

Participant

Hi T,

Ps 138:8 The LORD will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.

WAS THE WRITER TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE TO COME OTHER THAN HIMSELF

WHAT YOU THINK,???

The LORD will perfect that which concerneth ME:

What do you think?

Peace brother..

March 22, 2013 at 7:17 am#339055

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,10:28)

I have consistently said that Jesus is the Son of Yahweh-the Father.

i.e., Jesus is the son of the other YHWH then.

You said it.

March 22, 2013 at 7:25 am#339056