BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Apologetics => Topic started by: JoshuaStone7 on November 23, 2021, 11:17:15 AM
-
I am willing to share my understanding of who God is if you are willing to have the conversation. I mentioned previously I had a chapter on this subject in my book, and I should clarify: There are only four chapters in the book, but each chapter has seven subchapters. One-fourth of my 260-page book is on the Trinity. Nothing below is copied or pasted from my book...
I understand many Trinitarian devotees are very touchy over this subject; just as when I'm being called a heretic in another thread for even suggesting the Trinity is not Biblical. Now, that is the attitude that every so-called father of the church had when burning at the stake those like Martin Luther.
So I guess if your faith isn't strong enough to read a counterargument, then you don't have to read this post. But if you're interested in making sure of all things such as the Boreans, then join in the conversation.
-------
Let's start with two points:
Firstly, the original text had no punctuation or capitalization or verse separation. So, each translation uses a committee to decide what modern language words to use, where to punctuate, and so on.
Let's take John 1:3 for a second,
"Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4
Now, why are these two scriptures presented as they are? Well, men decided among themselves this was the originally intended writer's context.
Now, what happens if I move one period?
"Through Him, all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind." Jhn 1:3,4 (Joshua)
Who is to say that I am wrong and the current rendering in most translations is correct? "Who do I think I am?" Is that a good argument? Is the argument that every single hundreds of translations around the world have God's direct hand on them? The New World Translation utilizes the first rendering above and disagrees with mine. So, would you defend the NWT?
-------
Second, what is the definition of Theos/Theon, and how is it used within scripture?
I would like to make clear; first, I believe Jesus is God/GOD.
2316 - theos = (a) God, (b) a god, generally.
"The god (theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2Cor 4:4
"As indeed there are many “gods” (theos) and many “lords” 1Cor 8:5b
I think it's helpful to first establish the definition of the word god in scripture before moving forward and discussing which god we are talking about, IMO. Now please don't just be angry and start spouting apostolic tradition; I am well versed. Stay with me for a second...
I'm sure you are familiar with most translations removing a word from John 1:1-4. In my view, it's a very important word, and it's the word "the." Let's restore it for argument's sake,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God." Jhn 1:1-3 (Joshua)
So the Word was with the God and was in the beginning with the God, and the Word was God.
-------
Does the word theos alone identify the Almighty?
If two Gods are spoken of in the same sentence, do you simply assume they are equal?
Does Jesus have a God?
"Go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'” Joh 20:17
In the original text, all letters were capital, so what does it matter if we write god, God, or GOD? Isn't it only the context that matters?
-------
John 1 clearly tells us Jesus is God, but does that mean He never had a beginning and is the Almighty?
I'm not making any conclusion here; I'm simply discussing it...
All Christian love.
Joshua
-
One-fourth of my 260-page book is on the Trinity. Nothing below is copied or pasted from my book...
That's a shame. I don't really want to drop money on a book for one-fourth of it.
I understand many Trinitarian devotees are very touchy over this subject; just as when I'm being called a heretic in another thread for even suggesting the Trinity is not Biblical. Now, that is the attitude that every so-called father of the church had when burning at the stake those like Martin Luther.
You and Randy can work this one out between yourselves.
But I will say that the ECFs and Martin Luther weren't concurrent, nor was Luther burned at the stake. If anything, those ECFs played fun games like, "exiled to an island" (Athanasius and Arius liked to trade blows on this one) or "cut out the tongue of the confessor" (poor Maximus). Do you really think that Randy's attitude is sufficiently similar to 4th-century attitudes so as to draw a connection?
I'm suspect.
I will also say that on your forum header you wrote:
"an online community of true believers."
What is it you would call 'false believers'? You're a big boy.
So I guess if your faith isn't strong enough to read a counterargument, then you don't have to read this post. But if you're interested in making sure of all things such as the Boreans, then join in the conversation.
Sigh.
Firstly, the original text had no punctuation or capitalization or verse separation. So, each translation uses a committee to decide what modern language words to use, where to punctuate, and so on.
KOINEGREEKWASALLCAPITALSBUTYESTHATSHOWTRANSLATIONFROMLANGUAGETOANOTHERWORKS
ANDTRANSLATORSARENTTRANSLATINGARBITRARILYWHENTHEYADDINTHINGSLIKEPUNCTUATIONFOR
EXAMPLEYOUWOULDDOEXACTLYTHEVERYSAMETHINGWHENPARSINGOUTTHISTHOUGHTTIVENHOWDI
FFICULTITISTOPARSEINTHISFORMATANDJUSTASYOUWOULDNTDOTHISARBITRARILYNEITHERWOULDA
NYTRANSLATOR
Let's take John 1:3 for a second,
"Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4
Now, why are these two scriptures presented as they are? Well, men decided among themselves this was the originally intended writer's context.
Now, what happens if I move one period?
"Through Him, all things were created, and without Him, not nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind." Jhn 1:3 (Joshua)
Who is to say that I am wrong and the current rendering in most translations is correct? "Who do I think I am?" Is that a good argument? Is the argument that every single hundreds of translations around the world have God's direct hand on them? The New World Translation utilizes the first scripture above and disagrees with mine. So, would you defend the NWT?
Translators with a deep knowledge of Greek would say that your translation is wrong. Your translation - which is not just a misplaced period - is also just plain awkward, even in English.
I'm not going to tolerate taunting. So, after I post this, cut it out.
Second, what is the definition of Theos/Theon, and how is it used within scripture?
I would like to make clear; first, I believe Jesus is God/GOD.
I'm not sure that you do. What you seem to be saying is that you believe Jesus is 'a' 'g'od, not God/GOD, given that you hold Jesus to be distinct from God. Presumably this turns worship of Jesus into idolatry in your view, unless you believe God somehow bestows on Jesus His divine nature or substance?
2316 - theos = (a) God, (b) a god, generally.
"The god (theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2Cor 4:4
"As indeed there are many “gods” (theos) and many “lords” 1Cor 8:5b
I think it's helpful to first establish the definition of the word god in scripture before moving forward and discussing which god we are talking about, IMO. Now please don't just be angry and start spouting apostolic tradition; I am well versed. Stay with me for a second...
I'm sure you are familiar with most translations removing a word from John 1:1-4. In my view, it's a very important word, and it's the word "the." Let's restore it for argument's sake,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God." Jhn 1:1-3 (Joshua)
So the Word was with the God and was in the beginning with the God, and the Word was God.
Still, context is important, and while Scripture interprets Scripture, we ought not get loose with John.
The reason 'the' is missing from English translations is because τὸν θεόν shows definitiveness. This isn't needed in English, so it's dropped. Even if it were kept, 'the God' and 'God' hold the same semantic meaning. We capitalise where Greek throws in a τὸν. What your translation does not do is create a scenario where the Word is one God and 'the God' is another God. You'd need an indefinite article somewhere in there if you wanted that scenario.
Does the word theos alone identify the Almighty?
If two Gods are spoken of in the same sentence, do you simply assume they are equal?
Does Jesus have a God?
"Go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'” Joh 20:17
In the original text, all letters were capital, so what does it matter if we write god, God, or GOD? Isn't it only the context that matters?
Are you asking, what does it matter if we faithfully translate the text? The answer should be obvious, I hope.
John 1 clearly tells us Jesus is God, but does that mean He never had a beginning and is the Almighty?
Yes. That's clearly what John is conveying in v3. Also, πρός in v2.
I'm not making any conclusion here; I'm simply discussing it...
Mhmm.
-
Your translation - which is not just a misplaced period - is also just plain awkward, even in English.
I'm not going to tolerate taunting. So, after I post this, cut it out.
My "translation" was mistakenly written; I have corrected it.
"Not going to tolerate taunting?" You're going to have to point that out; I have no idea what you're talking about.
-
My "translation" was mistakenly written; I have corrected it.
"Not going to tolerate taunting?" You're going to have to point that out; I have no idea what you're talking about.
"The New World Translation utilizes the first scripture above and disagrees with mine. So, would you defend the NWT?"
The fixed translation is still awkward. What reasons do you have for translating it that way?
-
My "translation" was mistakenly written; I have corrected it.
"Not going to tolerate taunting?" You're going to have to point that out; I have no idea what you're talking about.
"The New World Translation utilizes the first scripture above and disagrees with mine. So, would you defend the NWT?"
The fixed translation is still awkward. What reasons do you have for translating it that way?
All I did was move the period. And it completely agrees with the first part of the scripture. All things came into being through the Word, right?
All things came into being that were created through Him.
"Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4
I did exactly what any translation does, placed a period. I already know others disagree; that's not why I'm sharing. I'm sharing to give you the opportunity to show me why I can't do that. And yes, I always use an interlinear...
Joshua
-
I'm sharing to give you the opportunity to show me why I can't do that. And yes, I always use an interlinear...
Why is this an opportunity for us to demonstrate the majority translation, and not an opportunity for you to argue for moving the period, if you think it ought to be moved? That's backwards. On what grounds are you arguing for the change? Punctuation isn't arbitrary, so...?
Here's the broader context of the change you're suggesting.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind.
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.
John, the humanist, who was sent from God to glorify mankind. So again, why move the full stop?
-
Why is this an opportunity for us to demonstrate the majority translation, and not an opportunity for you to argue for moving the period, if you think it ought to be moved? That's backwards. On what grounds are you arguing for the change? Punctuation isn't arbitrary, so...?
Here's the broader context of the change you're suggesting.
Which is it, present things as fact, or invite a conversation as an interchange? If I sat here telling you exactly why I moved the period, wouldn't you say I was just telling you what is truth; at which point you say, "What need is there for me to comment?"
I'm presenting to you that I changed the period location and offered to you to share with me why that can't be done. If you are looking for me to say more then you'll have to write that down so I know what I should say next time. (facepalm)
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind.
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.
John, the humanist, who was sent from God to glorify mankind. So again, why move the full stop?
I asked why I couldn't? Why shouldn't it read: "Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4
Beginning John 1:3, all things were created through the Word, right? Then what's wrong with the next half of that sentence saying, "and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him?" Does that not agree with the first part of the sentence? Life existed, and that life was the light of mankind.
Again, all I did was move the period.
If I'm approaching this rationally and without influence from any previous bias, then this period can be placed here.
The problem someone might have with this is the possible consequences to the view of the Trinty (At least one major supporting scripture). At which point we can discuss the meaning of Theos/Theon, and the Bible's use of those words, as well.
These are just the first two points in an otherwise complex subject, as you know.
Joshua
-
I understand many Trinitarian devotees are very touchy over this subject; just as when I'm being called a heretic in another thread for even suggesting the Trinity is not Biblical. Now, that is the attitude that every so-called father of the church had when burning at the stake those like Martin Luther.
I'm not touchy at all on the subject of the Trinity. I love discussing it. Calling one a heretic for rejecting the Trinity is a fact of history. Doctrinally orthodox Christians considered non-Trinitarian Christians "heretics!" And no, it does not mean that Trinitarians have to be hostile in calling you a heretic, nor does it mean at all that they always want to burn you at the stake.
Anti-Trinitarians may want to burn Trinitarians at the stake for all I know. But I would never say that means *you,* as a non-Trinitarian have to feel that way. So an apology is in order, I should think? Saying I want to burn you at the stake, or even insinuating that publicly, does make me a bit "touchy!" ;)
I must say that some heretical Christian groups make a point of feeling "persecuted." They consider it a badge of honor to be rejected by those "corrupt" religious people. JWs may be one of the worst groups like this. I try very hard not to make them feel bad so that they don't use their being "persecuted" as an argument to validate their religion. Persecuted people must be the righteous, right?
"Through Him, all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind." Jhn 1:3,4 (Joshua)
I don't see much in the way of distinction. Perhaps it's how you're reading it in your mind?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God." Jhn 1:1-3 (Joshua)
Again, I don't see the big distinction, unless you're trying to say, like the JWs, that God is just one God among many. The text certainly isn't contradicting the OT statement that God is one. God may be expressed as 3 distinct persons, but never as 3 distinct gods.
-
Calling one a heretic for rejecting the Trinity is a fact of history.
Let's get one thing straight: I am not a heretic, and I don't appreciate it. I'm well aware of what history did to those who were branded heretics, thank you very much.
Maybe you are....
Joshua
-
Why is this an opportunity for us to demonstrate the majority translation, and not an opportunity for you to argue for moving the period, if you think it ought to be moved? That's backwards. On what grounds are you arguing for the change? Punctuation isn't arbitrary, so...?
Here's the broader context of the change you're suggesting.
Which is it, present things as fact, or invite a conversation as an interchange? If I sat here telling you exactly why I moved the period, wouldn't you say I was just telling you what is truth; at which point you say, "What need is there for me to comment?"
I'm presenting to you that I changed the period location and offered to you to share with me why that can't be done. If you are looking for me to say more then you'll have to write that down so I know what I should say next time. (facepalm)
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind.
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.
John, the humanist, who was sent from God to glorify mankind. So again, why move the full stop?
I asked why I couldn't? Why shouldn't it read: "Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4
Beginning John 1:3, all things were created through the Word, right? Then what's wrong with the next half of that sentence saying, "and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him?" Does that not agree with the first part of the sentence? Life existed, and that life was the light of mankind.
Again, all I did was move the period.
If I'm approaching this rationally and without influence from any previous bias, then this period can be placed here.
The problem someone might have with this is the possible consequences to the view of the Trinty (At least one major supporting scripture). At which point we can discuss the meaning of Theos/Theon, and the Bible's use of those words, as well.
These are just the first two points in an otherwise complex subject, as you know.
Joshua
Your version destroys the obvious parallelism of the “items in a series” use of “through him”, “within him”, and “in him”, the agency of the logos being the primary focus.. the life and light and things are secondary subjects
-
Your version destroys the obvious parallelism of the “items in a series” use of “through him”, “within him”, and “in him”, the agency of the logos being the primary focus.. the life and light and things are secondary subjects
Here, is this better? Let's use them all from Romans 11:36
“For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36
"Through Him, all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created through Him." (Joshua Stone)
"For the sake of Him all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created for Him." (Joshua Stone)
"On account of Him all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created on account of Him." (Joshua Stone)
-------
I use an interlinear, not any specific Bible, so it doesn't matter to me which words you use. Let's use them all according to Romans 11:36.
My placement of the period is still a premise that has yet to be overcome.
Joshua
-
I just showed how your period placement in John 1 destroys the parallelism that emphasizes the agency fo the logos in creation instead of emphasizing the secondary subjects
-
I just showed how your period placement in John 1 destroys the parallelism that emphasizes the agency fo the logos in creation instead of emphasizing the secondary subjects
My period placement emphasizes the context of the sentence. The context is about creating things through Him. That's the context...
"parallelism that emphasizes the agency fo the logos in creation." You're going to have to explain what that means to me.
-
Sure
The emphasis is not on creation but on the creator
The entire prologue is about the logos not about the stuff the logos does
It’s a chiastic parallel, a classic Greek rhetorical device
The logos is the agency of the creation
The parallel through him, without him, in him emphasizes the same thing as the rest of the prologue
If I remember correctly John Crystosom dealt with this exact issue in his commentary
-
Sure
The emphasis is not on creation but on the creator
The entire prologue is about the logos not about the stuff the logos does
It’s a chiastic parallel, a classic Greek rhetorical device
The logos is the agency of the creation
The parallel through him, without him, in him emphasizes the same thing as the rest of the prologue
If I remember correctly John Crystosom dealt with this exact issue in his commentary
Then you agree with my period placement?
Because everything you just said there agrees, as far as I am understanding. Unless I have misunderstood.
Joshua
-------
“For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36
"Through Him, all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created through Him." (Joshua Stone)
"For the sake of Him all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created for Him." (Joshua Stone)
"On account of Him all things were created, and without Him, not even one thing came into being that was created on account of Him." (Joshua Stone)
-
No I don’t agree with your placement
It destroys the parallelism
The emphasis is on the propositional phrases “through him, “ “without him, and “in him”
The phrases introduce the resulting event
Through him everything was made that was made
Without him nothing was made of that which was made
In him was life
With the period where you place it. The chiasm is destroyed because you double the propositional phrase in the second leg resulting in no such phrase in the third
-
No I don’t agree with your placement
It destroys the parallelism
The emphasis is on the propositional phrases “through him, “ “without him, and “in him”
The phrases introduce the resulting event
Through him everything was made that was made
Without him nothing was made of that which was made
In him was life
With the period where you place it. The chiasm is destroyed because you double the propositional phrase in the second leg resulting in no such phrase in the third
The next sentence isn't about creation through the Word; it's about life existing already. I am separating the clauses because they are separate.
The translation I presented keeps the context of the creation through the Word within one sentence, all in verse 3. Verse 4 is about life existing already, not life coming from or through the Word.
My translation in fact restores the context.
In my opinion.
"Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind." (Joshua Stone)
"Life was, and that life was the light of mankind." (Joshua Stone)
The context in verse 4 isn't about life coming through the Word. It's about life already existing.
Joshua
-
As a follow-up, let me show you what happens when we translate verse 4 in the same way we do verse 3.
"For him was life, and that life was the light of mankind."
"Through him was life, and that life was the light of mankind."
Do you see what I mean? That's not the context of verse 4, "through Him" is the context of verse 3.
Verse 4 is about life already existing. The context does not flow in verse 4 by first stating (again) life came through Him, then saying life was the light of mankind after mankind was already created. No... Those are two different clauses.
The context of verse 4 is life already existing, and that life is the light of mankind, again, already existing.
The context of creation through the Word belongs in Verse 3. And by ending verse 3 with "in Him/through Him/for Him" we restore the separation of the two differing clauses.
Again, in my opinion...
Joshua
-
Calling one a heretic for rejecting the Trinity is a fact of history.
Let's get one thing straight: I am not a heretic, and I don't appreciate it. I'm well aware of what history did to those who were branded heretics, thank you very much.
Maybe you are....
Joshua
Yes, you are a heretic, because belief in the Trinity is an essential doctrine in Christian orthodoxy. Almost all conservative Christian groups in history have held to it. Only the Jesus Only groups in modern times may fit in with what I view as "real Christians," despite their anti-Trinitarian stand. In reality, modalism is not necessarily anti-Trinitarian, but it is considered as such by many Christians.
Belief that Jesus was created is also a heresy, which does make you a heretic. So deny it all you want--you're still a heretic.
If you don't want that label, then either don't claim you're doctrinally orthodox, or don't claim you're a Christian at all. But you cannot say you're not a heretic. By historical standards you are. And burning people at the stake is not an issue at all--it's purely a distraction.
Incidentally, you're not "setting me straight." You're digging a pit for yourself--I'm right.
-
Yes, you are a heretic, You're digging a pit for yourself
Okay, cowboy. Big man behind a keyboard.
Good luck to you...
-
Yes, you are a heretic, You're digging a pit for yourself
Okay, cowboy. Big man behind a keyboard.
Good luck to you...
You don't like facts, do you? I'm giving you facts, not trying to throw a rock harder than you can.
Why don't you take a look at what constitutes historic Christian orthodoxy in doctrine. One of the cardinal doctrines is Trinitarianism. I have nothing personal against you. I'm not hostile towards you. But it surely bothers you to be called a heretic. If that's what you are, you should proudly bear the title--nobody's trying to burn you or throw you into a pit.
I'm interested in facts, whether you like them or not. If you don't want to discuss truth, then leave. But if you're really so bothered by your beliefs being characterized as heretical, then maybe you don't belong *being* a heretic? Maybe you should more seriously consider orthodox doctrine, and try it on--see if it fits? You might be pleasantly surprised.
-
My heart is evangelical. I don't want to turn people off by calling them "heretics," or by calling them names viewed as insulting.
However, in the interest of truth some beliefs simply must be called "heresies." This has nothing to do with persecuting heretics, or subjecting them to ridicule.
But there are people who wish to identify as Christians so as to enter into fellowship with us and slowly cause our beliefs to erode away, to soften us to give what they want to believe credibility. If we let this happen, we will lose the distinctives that make us Christians, and we will lose the power of God that equips us to testify to Christ.
Appealing to "brotherhood" these false believers seek to weaken the hold Christians have on their cardinal doctrines, and perhaps unwittingly try to destroy the bond among Christians that makes us true Christians. As always we need to lift Christ up, and the beliefs that make him who he is--the eternal God, Son of the Father, and giver of the Spirit of grace.
-
The guy who calls himself a "brother" here is not a true brother, unless we wish to use the term as an endearing way of saying he is a "fellow human being." I have no problem with this.
But his claim that he is a "Christian brother" is confusing because he rejects cardinal doctrines that make Christians Christian. He may be called a Christian in the nominal sense because he does believe in Christ as existing in Jesus' humanity. But this does not mean he believes in Christ as he really was, eternal God.
So on a Christian forum, I personally would encourage the moderators to be careful with those who pretend to be friendly, only to use this place as a means of sowing false doctrine, to get people to accept as normal things that should not be tolerated as Christian doctrine.
I spent 10 years on an unmoderated group, and so I don't have any problem with discoursing with unbelievers or people I consider heretics. I enjoy discussion with anybody who's serious and truthful.
However, there is a danger on a Christian forum where allowing these false doctrines to go on unchallenged gives opportunity for heretics to get their beliefs accepted as non-heretical and Christian.
And I see that happening here with this brother who freely calls genuine Christians "brother," when there can be no real brotherhood with him as one who openly holds to heretical beliefs about Christ.
-
If I remember correctly John Crystosom dealt with this exact issue in his commentary
Indeed, beginning with the following and then continuing:
For we will not put the full stop after "not anything," as the heretics do. They, because they wish to make the Spirit created, say, "What was made, in Him was Life"; yet so what is said becomes unintelligible. First, it was not the time here to make mention of the Spirit, and if he desired to do so, why did he state it so indistinctly? For how is it clear that this saying relates to the Spirit? Besides, we shall find by this argument, not that the Spirit, but that the Son Himself, is created by Himself. But rouse yourselves, that what is said may not escape you; and come, let us read for a while after their fashion, for so its absurdity will be clearer to us. "What was made, in Him was Life." They say that the Spirit is called "Life." But this "Life" is found to be also "Light," for he adds, "And the Life was the Light of men." John 1:4 Therefore, according to them the "Light of men" here means the Spirit. Well, but when he goes on to say, that "There was a man sent from God, to bear witness of that Light" vers. 6, 7, they needs must assert, that this too is spoken of the Spirit; for whom he above called "Word," Him as he proceeds he calls "God," and "Life," and "Light." This "Word" he says was "Life," and this "Life" was "Light." If now this Word was Life, and if this Word and this Life became flesh, then the Life, that is to say, the Word, "was made flesh, and we beheld" Its "glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father." If then they say that the Spirit is here called "Life," consider what strange consequences will follow. It will be the Spirit, not the Son, that was made flesh; the Spirit will be the Only-Begotten Son.
Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240105.htm
-
However, there is a danger on a Christian forum where allowing these false doctrines to go on unchallenged gives opportunity for heretics to get their beliefs accepted as non-heretical and Christian.
I got it, Randy. Joshua's views aren't unchallenged, and I don't think anyone needs to keep pointing out at every opportunity that his Christology as expressed is heretical with respect to orthodox Christian belief.
If Joshua is here just to teach (and it doesn't seem like he is), then he won't be around much longer. If he's here to undermine the faith (which I doubt) then he won't be around much longer either. If he's here for genuine discussion then I'd suggest having better arguments than he has. If his views are heretical, then demonstrate that they are.
-
Which is it, present things as fact, or invite a conversation as an interchange?
Joshua, I've been exceptionally patient but the positing of such dichotomies is unbefitting someone who claims to have researched scholastic theology for thirty years; who has studied the doctrine of the trinity for at least 40 years, and who has been an ordained minister for over 20 years.
The placement of the full-stop in John 1:3-4 is, as you know, a well-known translational difficulty. How should it be punctuated?
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
or maybe?
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, ὃ γέγονεν.
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
or maybe?
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
But knowing this difficulty, and knowing that you plan to demonstrate a view of Jesus as God by title (coronation) and not nature, it is not at all unreasonable to ask why you're proposing we place the full stop where you've placed it -- with respect to grammatical and narrative structure.
This issue previously, of course, was not that you presented a view, but that it was presented as God-given, which implies that it's inarguable. In other words, how you presented what you wanted to say was the issue, and not what you wanted to say itself (which has gone unanswered). So no, this thread here is not an either/or. I noted previously that we want dialectic. Well, even Socrates managed to make a point or two.
If you want to present yourself as a researcher, minister and academic then stick to it. Don't start getting petty, because it's only going to cause me to think that you're being disingenuous. You aren't the only researcher and academic here with a pastoral background.
If I sat here telling you exactly why I moved the period, wouldn't you say I was just telling you what is truth; at which point you say, "What need is there for me to comment?"
No, because you haven't (yet) claimed that this understanding of John 1 was divinely revealed to you. There's no implication that you're closed off to discussion, and so, like your other threads, we would continue to discuss here as we have there.
You've researched scholasticism, right? You've studied the doctrine of the trinity? A distinction like the one above is child's play.
I'm presenting to you that I changed the period location and offered to you to share with me why that can't be done. If you are looking for me to say more then you'll have to write that down so I know what I should say next time. (facepalm)
As I wrote: merely moving the full stop turns John into a humanist who glorifies mankind. Is your reply really only, "yeah and why not?"
I asked why I couldn't? Why shouldn't it read: "Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him. Life was, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4
Beginning John 1:3, all things were created through the Word, right? Then what's wrong with the next half of that sentence saying, "and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him?" Does that not agree with the first part of the sentence? Life existed, and that life was the light of mankind.
Again, all I did was move the period.
"John, the humanist, who was sent from God to glorify mankind...." As I said, it changes the emphasis and makes nonsensical John's discussion of the light. There's also that whole chiastic structure thing, as RK mentioned.
In reply to RK, you offer a 'restored context' with respect to v4, but any restored context needs to account for the whole of the first 18 verses of John 1, and your reading doesn't, especially starting from v6. It completely mangles the identity of the light, stated in v3, and the importance of that light to "all mankind" in v4.
You end up with a nonsensical repetition, which is the very thing you're arguing against:
"Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind."
"Life was, and that life was the light of mankind."
Life existed and that life was the light of mankind? If you're going to facepalm, now is the time.
If I'm approaching this rationally and without influence from any previous bias, then this period can be placed here.
Free from bias. Good one. Free from the bias of telling others here that they blindly follow apostolic tradition? That is to set oneself up in an antagonistic relationship for no other reason than an unwarranted assumption.
These are just the first two points in an otherwise complex subject, as you know.
You haven't yet made a point.
-
Let's take John 1:3 for a second,
"Through Him all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind." Jhn 1:3,4
The New World Translation utilizes the first rendering above and disagrees with mine. So, would you defend the NWT?
By the way, the NWT renders John 1:3-4 as such:
"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men."
It's not quite the above rendering, is it?
-
Joshua, I've been exceptionally patient
Patience is always a good attribute to display.
No one likes their faith to be questioned, to be called a heretic, a branding with an obvious violent history.
No one likes to be told they are not a Christian.
No one likes to be told they are ungodly.
No one likes to be told they have no salvation.
To question one's faith because I am debating a 2000-year-old doctrine that was also debated at the time, and every year since? Suddenly, I'm attacking people on here simply because I am debating scripture, and that gives others the right to personally judge my salvation? Interesting...
If you disagree with what I present, counter it; but to attack one's faith, and to judge ones salvation and relationship with Christ? Those types of matters are in God's hands, and that's where I'll leave them.
I've had to show exceptional patience as well.
The placement of the full-stop in John 1:3-4 is, as you know, a well-known translational difficulty. How should it be punctuated?
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
or maybe?
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, ὃ γέγονεν.
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
or maybe?
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
Precisely. Hence:
ζωὴ ἦν καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
Life existed after it came through the Word. The focus is on the life that came through the Word. After all, it says that life was the light of mankind. That life that came through the Word was just mentioned in verse 3, and reiterated by the statement, "Life came to be." It assumes you already know how it came into being; it just said through the Word in verse 3.
But knowing this difficulty, and knowing that you plan to demonstrate a view of Jesus as God by title (coronation) and not nature, it is not at all unreasonable to ask why you're proposing we place the full stop where you've placed it -- with respect to grammatical and narrative structure.
Is "nature" the correct view of the word God, or is it a "title?" As I said, "What is the definition of Theos/Theon?" Isn't the definition of God, 'a ruler?'
When the satan is discussed as the god of this world, why do we not capitalize theos there? Because in English, we give more emphasis on capitalizing God, so that we distinguish who we believe is the almighty.
Why did the KJV capitalize all letters of LORD when replacing YHVH? It was an English translator's choice.
In the original Greek of John 1, all letters were capitalized. So with regard to capitalization, it reads as such,
THE WORD WAS WITH GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
Well, the same thing goes for theos when the text discusses the satan.
THE GOD OF THIS AGE HAS BLINDED THE MINDS OF UNBELIEVERS
So, when I approach capitalizing theos, I don't feel it matters how you capitalize it in any case. All that matters to me is the context each theos is spoken of. Others may disagree, but this is me. To me, theos is a title in scripture, and the only way to determine the rank of one god over another is to determine the context in which each is spoken, and their relationship with each other.
-------
Is god/theos a title for the satan, or is it his nature?
Are the other gods/theos in the bible a nature or a title?
Why all of a sudden is god/theos in John 1 a nature?
In my opinion, the term theos is only a title to show a ruler. I mean, that is what its definition is. Over the centuries, man has made that ruling term into some naturalistic moniker when scripture does not.
To me, you can substitute god with ruler, and it wouldn't change the text. Does this change the Deity of Christ for me? No. Does this change the eternal nature of the almighty to me? No. To me the term theos in scripture denotes ruler, and I don't see a "nature" definition to it.
This issue previously, of course, was not that you presented a view, but that it was presented as God-given, which implies that it's inarguable.
I do believe it is God-given. I believe your knowledge is God-given. I believe every day, all our food and every fine thing is from God.
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." Jms 1:17
In my view, every breath and every moment is from God. Does this make what I present "inarguable?" I've already said many times I make errors and am wrong many times. That's the last I'll respond to such criticism.
No, because you haven't (yet) claimed that this understanding of John 1 was divinely revealed to you.
I never said what I have presented was "divinely given." These are my understandings and my opinions, as I have stated many times.
I have never in my life said that God spoke to me, or that I have met God. I have never said God showed me anything physically. That, to me is the very definition of claiming divine knowledge or given direct communitive divine intervention.
What I have said is, my every breath is from God. My food and sustenance are from God. My salvation is from God. God gives me every fine thing in my life, and I believe that includes the Word.
That's the last time I'll respond to how I say things or my intentions.
You've researched scholasticism, right? You've studied the doctrine of the trinity? A distinction like the one above is child's play.
"Childs play?" I'm not sure that is a rebuttal. I can't answer your assertion there.
As I wrote: merely moving the full stop turns John into a humanist who glorifies mankind. Is your reply really only, "yeah and why not?"
Good, I prefer staying on subject.
I'm not seeing your connection. My translation, nor verses 1-4 ever focus on mankind. Life through the Word is the focus. Life came through the Word, and the life that came through the Word is the light of mankind. My translation doesn't change the focus of verse 3 or 4, which is life coming through the Word.
"Through Him, all things were created, and without Him nothing came into being that was created through Him."
"Life came to be, and that life was the light of mankind."
The focus is still on life coming through the Word. Life came to be through the Word. Verse 4 doesn't even mention mankind until it says that life was the light of mankind. That focus is on life through the Word. If I share any other translation, the focus is still the same.
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."
The focus is still life through the Word. Verse 4 is about life already having come into being through the Word. In my translation, it is assumed you already know life came into being from the Word because it just said that in verse 3.
I don't see your connection you're trying to make that moving the period somehow focuses more attention on mankind. The entire focus of these verses is that life came through the Word, and then only after that was life the light of mankind.
"John, the humanist, who was sent from God to glorify mankind...." As I said, it changes the emphasis and makes nonsensical John's discussion of the light.
Again, I'm not seeing it. The focus of verse 4 is firstly about life that came about through the Word and that life being the light of mankind. It is assumed by saying, "Life came about," that that was through the Word because it just said that in verse 3.
It completely mangles the identity of the light, stated in v3, and the importance of that light to "all mankind" in v4.
I'm not seeing it; maybe you'll need to explain it another way.
"Life came to be, (through the Word) and that life was the light of mankind."
I didn't change the focus of the light. Nothing changed as to the light whatsoever. What I did change was 'all things being created through the Word,' to 'all things being created through the Word that were created through Him.' Is that the real problem you have?
You end up with a nonsensical repetition, which is the very thing you're arguing against:
"Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind."
"Life was, and that life was the light of mankind."
Life existed and that life was the light of mankind? If you're going to facepalm, now is the time.
I'm not seeing your point. As the verses are normally translated, they are repetitive by stating again that "through Him was life, and that life was the light of mankind." That was already stated in verse 3.
Then my translation doesn't change the fact that life was created through the Word, it just assumes you already know that, because it just said that in verse 3. "Life came to be, and that life was the light of mankind." Life came to be through the Word as mentioned in verse 3.
You haven't yet made a point.
My point is to find brotherhood and fellow Christian love in the faith. However, I feel that even questioning others' doctrinal beliefs here regarding how you read the text is paramount to heresy, which validates berating a fellow Christian and questioning his faith and salvation. That is how a heretic is treated, isn't it?
This subject has been debated for two thousand years, yet it's a personal attack on you? (anyone here) No, the attack here is on me, and I will not respond to anyone attempting to explain that away, in that somehow, my feelings on that matter are unfounded. This specific objection is in God's hands now, just as those wished when saying they were "willing to take that risk."
Anyway, that's all I have to say for now...
Joshua
-
Anti-Trinitarians tread on dangerous ground, attempting, as they do, to detract from the full, eternal Deity of Christ as well as that of each revealed person of the triune Godhead, whether or not it is labelled formally as a Trinity.
This sect will never attain significant traction in the church as it proposes heretical teachings on the person of Christ, often reverting to teachings and interpretations employed by the JWs.
To counter challenges to their doctrines, they will often invoke the themes of brotherly love and inclusion into the fellowship of orthodoxy but it is not a good fit, nor will it ever be.
-
However, there is a danger on a Christian forum where allowing these false doctrines to go on unchallenged gives opportunity for heretics to get their beliefs accepted as non-heretical and Christian.
I got it, Randy. Joshua's views aren't unchallenged, and I don't think anyone needs to keep pointing out at every opportunity that his Christology as expressed is heretical with respect to orthodox Christian belief.
If Joshua is here just to teach (and it doesn't seem like he is), then he won't be around much longer. If he's here to undermine the faith (which I doubt) then he won't be around much longer either. If he's here for genuine discussion then I'd suggest having better arguments than he has. If his views are heretical, then demonstrate that they are.
Thankyou--fair enough. However, I did demonstrate from the start that he was espousing and sharing heretical beliefs, and I clearly outlined what they are. He simply denies, strongly, that his articulated heresies are in fact heresies, which of course they are.
I've made my statement, and I'll leave the rest to you. As I said, I'm happy to discuss things even with Christians of a different stripe. But there has to be honest debate--not complete denial of the facts. In this case, the fact is, he is espousing Christian heresy. He is denying the Trinity, and he is denying that Jesus is the eternal God--he claims Jesus was created.
-
Joshua, I've been exceptionally patient
Patience is always a good attribute to display.
No one likes their faith to be questioned, to be called a heretic, a branding with an obvious violent history.
No one likes to be told they are not a Christian.
No one likes to be told they are ungodly.
No one likes to be told they have no salvation.
Let me be clear, friend. I don't dislike you, except for your claiming I "hide behind my keyboard." Those kinds of comments I view as childish.
But you have a nice demeanor and likely speak with your own personal conviction--all good. You're certainly bright, so I don't want to match wits with you.
But I want to be clear--my calling you a heretic is not meant to insult you, but to clarify to others what you are and where you're coming from. They likely are smarter than me and already know.
But there is no intermediate position--you're either espousing heretical positions in Christianity or you are not. I'm just giving you the facts.
The historic councils have established Trinitarianism as a cardinal doctrine for the Church. Belief in the *eternal* Deity of Jesus is also a cardinal doctrine. How can Christians on a Christian forum argue doctrines that are what comprise the Church?
Should I sit here and argue whether I exist? Obviously, I'm breathing, and it's an exercise in futility to argue whether I do or don't!
It's just as ridiculous to argue whether a Christian can accept non-Trinitarianism. I know it's more complex than this. There are modalists, and there are those who hate the church councils, high churches, and the like. But some things are non-negotiable.
What is acceptable to me personally is what you were initially trying to do, to discuss from a neutral point of view, how logical Trinitarian doctrine is. It's never wrong to try to understand things for one's self. Otherwise, we're just parroting the beliefs of others. And I personally dislike that.
But we have to begin by admitting what doctrine constitutes orthodoxy in Christianity. Then we can have all of the discussion in the world, and see if we can personally get a full grasp of it, and whether we like it ourselves--whether we want to be called a "heretic" or not?
So let me just correct a few things that result from your emotional reaction. What you're saying to others about me is not true--at least you're inferring it has something to do with what I've said.
I never said you're going to Hell, or won't be saved. God can save even heretics, because I believe people are saved in their ignorance. They are saved by their heart, even if they've been misled in life.
2nd, I've never said you're not a "Christian." Nor have I called you "ungodly." You obviously have some kind of connection with God, and you have displayed good behavior most of the time, as I've said before.
What I've said is that you're not a doctrinally-orthodox Christian, which places you outside of the "salvation experience." This doesn't mean you're damned, but that you're not experiencing spiritual life in the new nature Christ died to give you. I want you to experience this. You deserve to experience it.
This is the "evangelist" speaking from me now. You may well experience spirituality and God in your life. But it is different to have this spiritual experience installed in your life as a *new nature."
This is called being "born again." You don't have to work at "being spiritual" all the time. You simply receive it into your life as your determined goal, and it stays. That's the "salvation experience" to me. It's a life choice.
-
I just spent the last hour writing a reply and then decided 'you know what? Never mind'. I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread because it's not a discussion on "Who is God?" but a discussion mainly on how far heretical doctrinal beliefs should be tolerated. Frankly, at this juncture, I don't think that's a discussion that's edifying to anyone.
I take further issue with the rhetorical method employed. The placing of oneself in the position of heretic, soon to be burned at the stake, is inappropriate. Challenges, even out of frustration, like "I guess if your faith isn't strong enough to read a counterargument" are uncalled for. The appeal to persecution is unfortunate. The false brotherhood is old hat.
What I am particularly wary of is the playing of games. Affirming that 'Jesus is God' while not stating that 'God' is to be taken as a title is sneaky. Glossing over and downplaying the significant differences between God-by-nature and God-by-title is sloppy. Saying things like, "let me present to you what our Lord has given me" and then arguing that no, no, what was meant is that everything is from God, is either dishonesty or covering up for incredibly poor phrasing. Personally attacking while accusing others of personal attacks is hypocritical.
In short, I'm not convinced the OP isn't disingenuous. And yes, I did write out a full reply to post #27. The question of punctuation in John 1 is worth a discussion, but in this thread, any such discussion is ruined.
It's all very unfortunate, but perhaps we can try again later. In controversial. Let's like, maybe talk about something other than Trinitarianism or Christology for the next 5 minutes.
-
Account deleted upon request.