The Hidden Treasure of John 1:1

[BroRando]

The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about.  First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.

{ snip }

[RandyPNW]

So what are you saying, in a nutshell, is the significance of these two terms for God? JWs claim "a God" renders Jesus less than THE God, correct? And historically, this would be the Christian heresy called Arianism.

[Athanasius]

I thought I decreed by arbitrary fiat the end of JW talking points for 5 minutes, which I've just decided means until 2022?

Sigh. If you want to discuss this awful grammatical talking point then do so wholly here and without external links to your own brand of bad Greek exegesis.

[Fenris]

JW talking points

Ooh, ooh, I have a question for the original poster! Why do you call yourselves "Jehovah's witnesses" when there's no "J" sound in Hebrew? Isn't that relying on an improper Greek translation of the original Hebrew text? I'll sit back down and wait for an answer.

[RabbiKnife]

I thought I decreed by arbitrary fiat the end of JW talking points for 5 minutes, which I've just decided means until 2022?

Sigh. If you want to discuss this awful grammatical talking point then do so wholly here and without external links to your own brand of bad Greek exegesis.

Yawn…

Fear Mr Administrator

Please find my brilliant refutation from the last time we did this and post it

Many thanks

The Lazy RabbiKnife

[CONSPICILLUM]

The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about.  First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.

{ snip }

The answer is quite simple, and is a basic Greek grammar answer that is often troublesome for English speakers.

The default presumption by English speakers is that other languages have the same grammatical structure as English. In this case, the issue would be definite versus indefinite articles for nouns. The English definite article designates “the, this, that” and particularizes a noun, while the English indefinite article designates “a, an” and generalizes a noun.

Greek utilizes an anarthrous construct for all nouns, to which can be added the definite article for specificity. The particularization of the Greek definite article being added is far more significant than the particularization of the English definite article. The latter tells only “which one” as “the, this, or that” while the former is a means of segmenting something that is otherwise completely unsegemented.

Anarthrous is an agglutinative like most Greek words, placing the prefix a- before the term arthrous to indicate the negation of “no / not”. Arthrous means segmented, so anarthrous means unsegmented. What this means in regards to Greek nouns is that every noun is completely unsegmented and the anarthrous construct is referring to every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of the noun. To particularize any facet of the semantic range of the word as a noun, the definite article is added to particularize the meaning by limiting the semantic range to a specific definition and usage within the range and scope of overarching meaning for the word.

For instance, when a table is thought and spoken of in Greek, the default understanding in the minds of those speaking that native first language is the entire scope of every type and kind and size and shape and application for all tables. The noun is presenting a very broad sense of “tableness” rather than merely one specific object that is a single table. The definite article serves the purpose of narrowing the entire tableness concept to a focus on some certain table. This is far more than just designating “this” table versus “that” table. Tableness in the Greek epistemic is a far more inclusive thought process, but isn’t overt and conscious or laborious as this might seem to imply. The Greek-based mind simply functions this way because the language is structured this way.

For the term Theos, the anarthrous noun refers to every quality, characteristic, and functionality or activity of divinity. When the definite article is added, it’s an emphasis on the Father personally and as the fountainhead of divinity. So in John 1:1, the initial reference is articular and is to the Father, while the secondary reference is devoid of the article and is to the Word (later specifically referred to as the Son). This means the Word is divinity by every qualitative characteristic and functional activity associated with divinity, but is not the Father.

The distinction being made is that the Son is divinity but is distinct from THE divinity which is the Father. This both designates the Son as divinity while designating that the Son is not “another” divinity by any qualitative or quantitative means or in any functional manner. Same divinity. Same essence as ontology (beingness) and economy (doing). From here, it then would plunge into even more minutiae of Greek grammar and lexicography to establish the sameness of divinity while also demonstrating the difference in substance versus essence. No need to reinvent Patristic doctrine in modernity when remedial understanding is not yet present, and challenges are being made based upon rudimentary linguistic information about articles in comparative languages.

Since there’s no indefinite article in Greek, it comes down to translational techniques whether to insert “a or an” in appropriate places. This is absolutely not an appropriate place for the insertion of the English indefinite article. The only reason to insert “a” in this passage would be to superimpose a false doctrine upon and into the inspired text when it doesn’t and can’t appropriately be present. This is a linguistic absolute and is not open for debate with those who are in error and adhere to historically heretical Christology.

[Athanasius]

I thought I decreed by arbitrary fiat the end of JW talking points for 5 minutes, which I've just decided means until 2022?

Sigh. If you want to discuss this awful grammatical talking point then do so wholly here and without external links to your own brand of bad Greek exegesis.

Yawn…

Fear Mr Administrator

Please find my brilliant refutation from the last time we did this and post it

Many thanks

The Lazy RabbiKnife

I think you can rest easy on this one. Anytime someone throws out the word 'economy' as CONSPICILLUM has, is a time when you can be sure the speaker knows their stuff.

[BroRando]

So what are you saying, in a nutshell, is the significance of these two terms for God? JWs claim "a God" renders Jesus less than THE God, correct? And historically, this would be the Christian heresy called Arianism.

Are you claiming that Jesus engaged in Arianism when he stated. "the Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)

[RandyPNW]

So what are you saying, in a nutshell, is the significance of these two terms for God? JWs claim "a God" renders Jesus less than THE God, correct? And historically, this would be the Christian heresy called Arianism.

Are you claiming that Jesus engaged in Arianism when he stated. "the Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)

No, I'm saying that the historic Church determined what was orthodox doctrine for them, and what was heresy in their view. That Church deemed Arianism a heresy, which was the belief that Jesus was less than God--a super-man for sure, but not actually THE God.

What you're arguing is what you think was in the mind of the author of this Scripture. Since John wrote this before Trinitarian doctrine was formulated, you have to decide  what John believed--what the Church later believed he believed, or what you think he believed?

My own personal belief aligns with the Church Fathers, who believed John was Trinitarian in his beliefs, even though Trinitarian doctrine had not yet been formulated. From what I can tell in the Gospels, Jesus said he was God. Any sense of a "lesser god" is unknown as existing in the Scriptures by me. There is one God, with God appearing in a human form, a distinct person from the Father and yet true God in substance.

Some people consider me somewhat off base and semi-heretical when I partly agree with Origen (subordinationism), who saw the Son as sort of eternally condensing into a human image of God, existing perennially in a finite form without sacrificing his Deity. God created the body of the Son by revelation of His word.

Since revelation is transitory, God could become something without sacrificing His Person as the source of His revelation. In fact, it was well within His ability to create a revelation of His own Person!

The key is in understanding than an infinite God can appear in finite forms without sacrificing the unity between His infinite substance and lesser forms of that same substance.

This may take elaboration to explain it further. It's difficult material for me to say.

[RabbiKnife]

I thought I decreed by arbitrary fiat the end of JW talking points for 5 minutes, which I've just decided means until 2022?

Sigh. If you want to discuss this awful grammatical talking point then do so wholly here and without external links to your own brand of bad Greek exegesis.

Yawn…

Fear Mr Administrator

Please find my brilliant refutation from the last time we did this and post it

Many thanks

The Lazy RabbiKnife

I think you can rest easy on this one. Anytime someone throws out the word 'economy' as CONSPICILLUM has, is a time when you can be sure the speaker knows their stuff.

I was still working on “agglutinative.”
Saving that one for Scrabble.

[RabbiKnife]

The truth about John 1:1 has been long hidden from the masses. Why is learning this scripture vital to your spiritual health? Because words matter! In Greek there are two different words for God. Also, using a definite article emphasizes the subject spoken about.  First instance is ton theon which means the God and the second instance is theos which means a god.

{ snip }

The answer is quite simple, and is a basic Greek grammar answer that is often troublesome for English speakers.

The default presumption by English speakers is that other languages have the same grammatical structure as English. In this case, the issue would be definite versus indefinite articles for nouns. The English definite article designates “the, this, that” and particularizes a noun, while the English indefinite article designates “a, an” and generalizes a noun.

Greek utilizes an anarthrous construct for all nouns, to which can be added the definite article for specificity. The particularization of the Greek definite article being added is far more significant than the particularization of the English definite article. The latter tells only “which one” as “the, this, or that” while the former is a means of segmenting something that is otherwise completely unsegemented.

Anarthrous is an agglutinative like most Greek words, placing the prefix a- before the term arthrous to indicate the negation of “no / not”. Arthrous means segmented, so anarthrous means unsegmented. What this means in regards to Greek nouns is that every noun is completely unsegmented and the anarthrous construct is referring to every qualitative characteristic and functional activity of the noun. To particularize any facet of the semantic range of the word as a noun, the definite article is added to particularize the meaning by limiting the semantic range to a specific definition and usage within the range and scope of overarching meaning for the word.

For instance, when a table is thought and spoken of in Greek, the default understanding in the minds of those speaking that native first language is the entire scope of every type and kind and size and shape and application for all tables. The noun is presenting a very broad sense of “tableness” rather than merely one specific object that is a single table. The definite article serves the purpose of narrowing the entire tableness concept to a focus on some certain table. This is far more than just designating “this” table versus “that” table. Tableness in the Greek epistemic is a far more inclusive thought process, but isn’t overt and conscious or laborious as this might seem to imply. The Greek-based mind simply functions this way because the language is structured this way.

For the term Theos, the anarthrous noun refers to every quality, characteristic, and functionality or activity of divinity. When the definite article is added, it’s an emphasis on the Father personally and as the fountainhead of divinity. So in John 1:1, the initial reference is articular and is to the Father, while the secondary reference is devoid of the article and is to the Word (later specifically referred to as the Son). This means the Word is divinity by every qualitative characteristic and functional activity associated with divinity, but is not the Father.

The distinction being made is that the Son is divinity but is distinct from THE divinity which is the Father. This both designates the Son as divinity while designating that the Son is not “another” divinity by any qualitative or quantitative means or in any functional manner. Same divinity. Same essence as ontology (beingness) and economy (doing). From here, it then would plunge into even more minutiae of Greek grammar and lexicography to establish the sameness of divinity while also demonstrating the difference in substance versus essence. No need to reinvent Patristic doctrine in modernity when remedial understanding is not yet present, and challenges are being made based upon rudimentary linguistic information about articles in comparative languages.

Since there’s no indefinite article in Greek, it comes down to translational techniques whether to insert “a or an” in appropriate places. This is absolutely not an appropriate place for the insertion of the English indefinite article. The only reason to insert “a” in this passage would be to superimpose a false doctrine upon and into the inspired text when it doesn’t and can’t appropriately be present. This is a linguistic absolute and is not open for debate with those who are in error and adhere to historically heretical Christology.

Very nice.  Thanks

[CONSPICILLUM]

So what are you saying, in a nutshell, is the significance of these two terms for God? JWs claim "a God" renders Jesus less than THE God, correct? And historically, this would be the Christian heresy called Arianism.

Are you claiming that Jesus engaged in Arianism when he stated. "the Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)

No, I'm saying that the historic Church determined what was orthodox doctrine for them, and what was heresy in their view. That Church deemed Arianism a heresy, which was the belief that Jesus was less than God--a super-man for sure, but not actually THE God.

What you're arguing is what you think was in the mind of the author of this Scripture. Since John wrote this before Trinitarian doctrine was formulated, you have to decide  what John believed--what the Church later believed he believed, or what you think he believed?

My own personal belief aligns with the Church Fathers, who believed John was Trinitarian in his beliefs, even though Trinitarian doctrine had not yet been formulated. From what I can tell in the Gospels, Jesus said he was God. Any sense of a "lesser god" is unknown as existing in the Scriptures by me. There is one God, with God appearing in a human form, a distinct person from the Father and yet true God in substance.

Some people consider me somewhat off base and semi-heretical when I partly agree with Origen (subordinationism), who saw the Son as sort of eternally condensing into a human image of God, existing perennially in a finite form without sacrificing his Deity. God created the body of the Son by revelation of His word.

Since revelation is transitory, God could become something without sacrificing His Person as the source of His revelation. In fact, it was well within His ability to create a revelation of His own Person!

The key is in understanding than an infinite God can appear in finite forms without sacrificing the unity between His infinite substance and lesser forms of that same substance.

This may take elaboration to explain it further. It's difficult material for me to say.

This is heterodox, and borders on material heresy. I’d urge you to reconsider your internal reasoning.

[Athanasius]

That Church deemed Arianism a heresy, which was the belief that Jesus was less than God--a super-man for sure, but not actually THE God.

Of a similar substance to God, so surely more than a mere super-man in the eyes of Arius -- who still held that Jesus is the creator of all (God creates Jesus, who creates everything else).

Some people consider me somewhat off base and semi-heretical when I partly agree with Origen (subordinationism), who saw the Son as sort of eternally condensing into a human image of God, existing perennially in a finite form without sacrificing his Deity. God created the body of the Son by revelation of His word.

Does that mean you also partly agree with Arius, who also held to subordinationism? Although, is what you're describing even subordinationism?

[Athanasius]

Are you claiming that Jesus engaged in Arianism when he stated. "the Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)

So, what are you actually trying to convey here?

You've so far offered the typical JW misreading of John 1:1 (which is so thoroughly refuted it's amazing anyone offers it, but I see you're going full bore with your e-book, Coptic manuscript and all), and now, a leading question that gets us nowhere.

What's the hidden treasure of John 1?

[RandyPNW]

That Church deemed Arianism a heresy, which was the belief that Jesus was less than God--a super-man for sure, but not actually THE God.

Of a similar substance to God, so surely more than a mere super-man in the eyes of Arius -- who still held that Jesus is the creator of all (God creates Jesus, who creates everything else).

Some people consider me somewhat off base and semi-heretical when I partly agree with Origen (subordinationism), who saw the Son as sort of eternally condensing into a human image of God, existing perennially in a finite form without sacrificing his Deity. God created the body of the Son by revelation of His word.

Does that mean you also partly agree with Arius, who also held to subordinationism? Although, is what you're describing even subordinationism?

No, I don't agree with my detractors, who find the language I use a form of subordinationism. I think Tertullian saw the Son as an eternal radiation of ight from God who is the source of that light. And so the light source and the radiation of that light share the same substance. (I am arguing in favor of "same substance," the orthodox formula.)

Origen is accused of engaging in subordinationism because of his apparent focus on economic distinctions between the Father and the Son. But it is apparent that Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I," without denying that he was the human expression of the Father. God's word is on a lower level of expression than God's understanding of Himself, which is infinite. God is revealing Himself to finite creatures He has created, and thus is speaking *down* to them.

Jesus said, "The Father is in me." That expresses an essential unity of divine personality between the Father and His verbalized expressions to man, including the human expression of Deity.

So whether you focus on the unity of God or focus or on the subordinated position of Christ to the Father, you will still be orthodox in your theology, as long as you spell it out as an economic unity. It is not merely an alignment of wills, or some kind of syncretistic or functional unity, but rather, an essential unity of Persons, without sacrificing the subordinated position of the Son.

My own way of expressing this is dictated by my own need to understand this in words that satisfy my own intellectual needs. I need to hear it in terms of an infinite God and finite forms of God.

Every Person of the Trinity is infinite. And yet the roles they play are described in finite terms. "The Father" itself is a finite expression to us about God. The Son expresses God in a finite, human form. The Spirit also is the appearance of God in finite space. They all are disclosed to us in finite language, and appear in different finite expressions. And yet, all of them are infinite Deity.

Origen explained the difference between infinite Deity and His Wisdom as such:

For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding. Nor, seeing He is called the Son of (His) love, will it appear absurd if in this way He be called the Son of (His) will. Nay, John also indicates that “God is Light,” and Paul also declares that the Son is the splendor of everlasting light. As light, accordingly, could never exist without splendor, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father; for He is called the “express image of His person,” and the Word and Wisdom.

How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity. Now this expression which we employ—”that there never was a time when He did not exist”—is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words “when” or “never” have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. This Son of God, then, in respect of the Word being God, which was in the beginning with God, no one will logically suppose to be contained in any place; nor yet in respect of His being “Wisdom,” or “Truth,” or the “Life,” or “Righteousness,” or “Sanctification,” or “Redemption:” for all these properties do not require space to be able to act or to operate, but each one of them is to be understood as meaning those individuals who participate in His virtue and working.

My saying the Persons of the Trinity are finite expressions of an infinite God can be misleading, suggesting to some that all of them are less than God, or the Son is less than full Deity.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are all infinite Deity expressing God in finite ways. After all, revelation is the transformation of an infinite God into finite expressions of Himself. These are really divine expressions of God in a form less than an expression of something infinite. It is the infinite being expressed in finite form so that we can understand it.

Once God expresses Himself in a form of revelation, it becomes finite communication that we can understand. Otherwise, nobody could understand anything about an infinite Being.

As I see it, Origen is correct. God is infinite, and although God's Word appears in finite form it remains the product of an infinite source, and therefore united in divine substance.