Who is God?

[RabbiKnife]

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

[JoshuaStone7]

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

[JoshuaStone7]

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

[RandyPNW]

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.

[JoshuaStone7]

Yes, you are a heretic, You're digging a pit for yourself

Okay, cowboy. Big man behind a keyboard.

Good luck to you...

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Athanasius]

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

[Athanasius]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[Athanasius]

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?

[JoshuaStone7]

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

[IMINXTC]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.