The word [Jesus?] was God

[Guest]

Hi, Derek (and Ely),

Wow - you guys have been fast and furious here! Please pardon my interposing.

Concerning Genesis 1:

Ely: About the "us" and "we" passages, these are cases either of 1) Plural of intensity or 2) Yahweh speaking to the anglels.

Derek: Come on. "One of us angels"? "In the image of us angels"?

Are we made in anyway in the image of angels? Does the bible ever teach that? Sounds a bit desperate!

(aleph) If one wishes to go with the "angels" route, it may be helpful to remember that early Hebrew thought about heavenly powers did not necessarily correspond to Christian categories of thought. Spiritual beings that Christians might call "angels," early Hebrews might call "gods." These Hebrews did not necessarily hold such stark monotheistic categories of thought as later thinkers. So the upshot might not be "one of us angels," but "one of us gods" - which is to say, "one of us heavenly/spiritual beings."

But then again, if one wishes to preserve the angelic category of thought, God may be understood as speaking to angels in terms of what they do have in common with him - thus (for example) "one of us rational beings."


(beth) Another suggestion (though a tentative one) is that there may be some theological subtlety here. God may be portrayed as talking to himself, as you or I might when we go about a project: "Where shall we put this rosebush? Ah, yes - let's put it over here by the bench."

What might the point of this be? To highlight God's loneliness and desire for companionship.

The historical viability of this option might depend upon the early Hebrews' understanding of God's heavenly coterie. Were the gods/angels considered to be companionate beings, or were they viewed more as functionaries?


(gymel) As for "[s]ound[ing] a bit desperate!" - it is normative and generally preferable to interpret an isolated text in such a way as to conform with a preponderant vector of theology. For one pluralistic marker here, there are several hundreds of singular markers throughout the immediate and broader context. What is "desperate" is to seize upon a single, indefinite text to support one's dogma, without keeping the preponderant vector in proper perspective.

An exception to this norm may be made if there are fair historical reasons for explaining the aberrance of an isolated text. In this venue, some have argued that the "we" language in Genesis 1 is vestigial from an earlier polytheistic form of the narrative. If this is so, we may acknowledge that the vestigial persistence is due to the lack of stark monotheistic categories as previously mentioned.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

Ely is well-capable of answering for himself, but I would like to break into this thread too, if I may.

By "plural of intensity", I think Ely means something like "the royal 'we'", where a king says "We shall now pronounce our judgment" when he is speaking of no one other than himself.

As for speaking to the angels, that has been the Jewish interpretation.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is the Father speaking to the Son.
Early Christians, such as Justin Martyr, also affirmed this.

Yet, the Son was the Angel (messenger) of Yahweh, the Father, and so in that sense, He was speaking to an angel.

[_Derek]

Paidion and Emmet,

Thanks for the info. I did a little research this morning and saw some of this. I appreciate you filling me in!

God bless,

[_Derek]

Ok, just to back up a bit and make sure I understand you:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

All things are made here "because of, or on account of" the "plan" of God (it not He).

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No longer talking about the "plan" here but Jesus, but still "on account of, because of".

Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:.

This may be an interpolation, but again, "because of, on account of".

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

"en" is "in" not "by" meaning everything kind of culminates in Christ. "Dia" is "on account of, becuase of" not "through" or "by".

I just realized that it says also "he is before all things, and by Him all things exist" which really seems to lend strength to the idea that Jesus was there, (since He's before all things). I'd be interested on your comments there.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

~I edited here-I though "by" in 1a and 2a was "dia", but it's "en".
"Dia" whom also he made the worlds does not mean “through His agency” but "because of; on account of".

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

So now we're here. This verse, once again, really seems to make it look like the Son is the creator. (this chapter makes it appear as though He's God as well, but again, another thread for that I'm sure)

Looking forward to your thoughts!

God bless,

[Guest]

Derek, in the search for truth, we often face unfrotunate pitfalls which cause us to have to think a bit harder. As someone who believes that the truth will withstand any amount of examination, I am happy to share the followign information with you concering the prepositon dia. You'll be even happier!

I was speaking to a (fellow unitarian) brother the other day and he pointed out something vry significant. Apparently, whenever the preposition dia is followed by a noun in the genitive case, then dia always indicates the means by which something was done, not the reason for which something was done. When the noun is in the dative, then it indicates the reason something was done. I've searched through all the occasions where this is used with regard to all things being made "dia Jesus" and his name, or pronoun (him, whom, etc.) is almost always in the genitive. This fact is used by Trinitarian apologists.

As a very wise and pious man is known to say from time to time..DOH!!

I need to think a bit more deeply about this one. I seem to remember that there places there are places in the NT where the normal rules of Grammar are broken. the rule itself may not be a hard and fast one, even if it is generally accurate. I know there are other "rules" of Greek Grammar which have exceptions (just like with English).

Shalom,
Ely

[_Derek]

I was speaking to a (fellow unitarian) brother the other day and he pointed out something vry significant. Apparently, whenever the preposition dia is followed by a noun in the genitive case, then dia always indicates the means by which something was done, not the reason for which something was done. When the noun is in the dative, then it indicates the reason something was done. I've searched through all the occasions where this is used with regard to all things being made "dia Jesus" and his name, or pronoun (him, whom, etc.) is almost always in the genitive. This fact is used by Trinitarian apologists.

That's interesting. I was going to call James White and ask if there was a grammatical reason (as opposed to only theological) for translating it that way in the verses we've been talking about.

Thanks for the info.

As I said, I went through all of those verses as well, and the ones I quoted, all seemed to share a common structure or something. I think I stated it wrong, as you pointed out, but it just seems like they are different from the others. That's why I didn't quote them. Since you pointed out that my little "formula" didn't work, I haven't been able to put my finger on the similarities, and still can't!

So....

How in the world do you figure out the "case" of a noun or pronoun?

God bless,

[_Derek]

I just ran across this:

By whom - By whose agency; or who was the actual agent in the creation. Grotins supposes that this means, “on account of whom;” and that the meaning is, that the universe was formed with reference to the Messiah, in accordance with an ancient Jewish maxim. But the more common and Classical usage of the word rendered “by” (διὰ dia), when it governs a genitive, as here, is to denote the instrumental cause; the agent by which anything is done; see Mat_1:22; Mat_2:5, Mat_2:15, Mat_2:23; Luk_18:31; Joh_2:17; Acts , Act_2:22, Act_2:43; Act_4:16; Act_12:9; Rom_2:16; Rom_5:5.It may be true that the universe was formed with reference to the glory of the Son of God, and that this world was brought into being in order to show his glory; but it would not do to establish that doctrine on a passage like this. Its obvious and proper meaning is, that he was the agent of the creation - a truth that is abundantly taught elsewhere; see Joh_1:3, Joh_1:10; Col_1:16; Eph_3:9; 1Co_8:6. This sense, also, better agrees with the design of the apostle in this place. His object is to set forth the dignity of the Son of God. This is better shown by the consideration that he was the creator of all things, than that all things were made for him. ~From Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible


A lot of those are the verses I quoted. I don't know why I quoted them though! (aside from intuition?) I would be interested to know if all of the nouns and pronouns were genitive!

[Guest]

So....

How in the world do you figure out the "case" of a noun or pronoun?

Well, if you can recognise Greek letters and words, there is apparently some kind of stem or something which determines the case. Same with tenses. I've resolved to making an effort to get familiar with Greek. I've sent off for a Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar to make a start on this.

In the meantime though, there is an awesome, and completely free downloadable application called Interlinear Scripture Analyzer. For each English word, it gives the Strong's number, the case, gender, tense, mood and whether it's plural or single. There are also two literal translations you can download including the Concordant Literal version. You can find it here: http://www.scripture4all.org/

I'd also recommend putting the following site in your favourites menu. It gives basic information on biblical Greek. I am constantly refering to the "List of All Terms" which gives very brief descriptions of things like "case" and "mood." I use it all the time: http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/grkindex.htm

Shalom
Ely

[_Derek]

Thanks Ely!! God bless you brother!

[Guest]

I'm sick today, didn't work...but noticed....

If one wishes to go with the "angels" route, it may be helpful to remember that early Hebrew thought about heavenly powers did not necessarily correspond to Christian categories of thought. Spiritual beings that Christians might call "angels," early Hebrews might call "gods."

In the late and early to mid second centuries the newly re-organized Judaism condemned heretics for believing in "two powers in heaven." Some scholars say that among these these heretics were, in fact, the very first Christians who held to these ancient Hebrew beliefs you are posting about, Emmet!

These Hebrews did not necessarily hold such stark monotheistic categories of thought as later thinkers.

Not all Jews in the first century necessarily held to what we think of as "monotheism" either. If you or anyone else is interested:

What Do We Mean by "First-Century Jewish Monotheism"?
by Larry W. Hurtado

But, yes, Emmet: The ancient Hebrews did see the angels as gods, "sons of God" and "the hosts of heaven". I believe this "old school" of Hebrew thought continued up to the first century -- with Jesus and the very first Christians --- and beyond. It wasn't until the Church became predominantly Gentile, and this didn't take very long, that these ancient Hebrew beliefs either dwindled away or were eventually completely stamped out.

Another article of interest on things related:
"Some Observations about Paul and Intermediaries"
Alan Segal

Segal, a Jew, who is also a leading expert on NT era Judaism, comments on Hurtado and references to his own book: "Two Powers in Heaven"....

I have a chest cold.......better go to bed.