The word [Jesus?] was God

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Thu May 24, 2007 5:16 am

Derek, notice Colwell's "rule" states that a predicate nominative never takes the defininite article when it precedes the verb
.

Yes, I realise that. I was speaking of John 1:1, and was refering to how it's rendered in English. Sorry, should have stuck to one language at a time.

Thanks,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Sat May 26, 2007 3:31 pm

Emmet,

We are covering lots of ground on this thread. I wonder if we need a new one. Anyway....
You wrote:(aleph) "Second Temple Judaism" is conventional scholastic nomenclature for post-exilic/prerabbinic Judaism. Even if the Enochian and Essene traditions looked to a restoration of the temple cultus, they were participants in the Second Temple-era spectrum of Judaisms.
No one knows when the Enochian tradition began. Its adherents would say "from the beginning" much in the same way Orthodox Jews believe their traditions come in direct lineage from Moses. The Essenes existed by the time of the Maccabees. How far back their roots go is also unknown. Afaik, all sects within Judaism made the claim that their sect was the oldest and purest, etc.
You also wrote:As for the correlation of these movements with First Temple Judaism - one may invoke the example of some "bible Christians" who imagine themselves to be part of "the New Testament church," when (despite their best intentions and deepest wishes) they are part-and-parcel of contemporary American Christianity; although they derive inspiration from the past model, many of these Christians' basic assumptions and patterns of thought are established by intervening influences, alien to the past tradition. Even those who seek to reclaim the past do not fully escape their present.
This example fails due to simple math.
423BC - 353BC = 70 years.
Even using the older date for the destruction of the temple:
586BC - 353BC = 233 years.

Second Temple Judaisms were only about about 233 years removed (using the earlier dating of First Temple destruction) and were, possibly, a mere 70 years away.

2007AD - 33AD = 1,974 years ("you missed it by that much")

bbl

Later that next day....

2007AD - 233 years = 1774AD
Since 2 years before this country's independence the changes that happened then, prior to then, and ever since, are there for all to see. The evolution and heritages of political and religious ideas (parties and movements) are easily discernable; the lineages are intact. Therefore, seeing that Second Temple Judaisms were proximal in time to First Temple Judaism(s?) -- as current Americans are to their date of Independence; your "argument from time" is rebutted. Anyway, I rest my case on this one!

I concur that some who claim "New Testament Christianity" are way off base. The math broke down your argument, however. Have a Nice day.

bbl, Emmet :wink:
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Ely
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by _Ely » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:35 pm

Time to resurrect this one!

Paidion wrote:I find that that when a predicate nominative precedes the copula verb, it always describes a quality of the subject nominative. This is done in several places other than John 1:1, for example "God is love". In Greek, the word for "love" precedes the verb. This also happens in "Your word is truth". The word for "truth" in Greek precedes the verb "is".

And so in John 1:1, God (or "divinity") is the quality that the Logos was.

This sounds very plausible to me. A trinitarian article at PFRS on this passage states that the inclusion of an article before both theos and logos would teach modalism because it would indicate that the word was the same entity as the God - i.e. modalism (http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/john1_1.html) Good stuff.

I just wanted to find out about the significance of articles. Derek raised the issue of passages where theos has no article. Here are some from the same chapter (John 1):

"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." 1:6

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 1:12-13

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. 1:18

Why the lack of articles here?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus" Titus 2:13
www.lasttrumpet.com
www.pfrs.org

_Ely
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by _Ely » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:42 pm

Anybody re: above?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus" Titus 2:13
www.lasttrumpet.com
www.pfrs.org

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:27 pm

Ely wrote:Anybody re: above?
Sorry bro, this thread has gone over my head I'm afraid.

God bless!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:13 pm

This sounds very plausible to me. A trinitarian article at PFRS on this passage states that the inclusion of an article before both theos and logos would teach modalism because it would indicate that the word was the same entity as the God - i.e. modalism (http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/john1_1.html) Good stuff.


Bingo then maybe i'm a modalist. :P
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:15 pm

Bingo then maybe i'm a modalist.


Actually Jesus is the same diety, i'm not sure about entity.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Ely
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by _Ely » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:12 am

STEVE7150 wrote:Bingo then maybe i'm a modalist.


Actually Jesus is the same diety, i'm not sure about entity.

That's what the Tim Warner's article and Paidion are saying. The word is the same kind of thing as God the Father, but is not the exact same thing as God the Father. I would agree. I guess a modalist (e.g. oneness pentecostals) might use this passage to teach that the logos is the same things as God the Father.

But I was more asking about the significance of articles in Greek. Why, when it comes to God, is the article used in some instances but no at others?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus" Titus 2:13
www.lasttrumpet.com
www.pfrs.org

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:46 am

Thanks for bringing this up, Ely. I am looking into it. I will say this right now, however. I have never discovered an instance in which the article IS used, where the reference is to any other than the Father.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

_Ely
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by _Ely » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:37 pm

Paidion wrote:Thanks for bringing this up, Ely. I am looking into it. I will say this right now, however. I have never discovered an instance in which the article IS used, where the reference is to any other than the Father.
Cool. FYI, I think there are many occasions where theos i sused with the article and is not talking about God the Father. John 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8 are both referring to Jesus (though I know you might not agree that the Hebrews one is calling Jesus theos). 2 Corinthians 4:4 is referrign to the devil. In the LXX, we have Exodus 4:16 and 7:21 (referring to Moses), 22:8-9 (judges of Israel), Judges 11:24 (Chemosh) and 1 Samuel 5:7 (Dagon).

Shalom
Ely
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus" Titus 2:13
www.lasttrumpet.com
www.pfrs.org

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”