J
juliamajor
Guest
Compare and contrast the opening of John to the opening of Genesis,Why are they similar? Why do they parallel?What Is John trying to say who read that Gospel?What is trying to say about Jesus’ pre-existence
- Status
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
I did not bring up the verse as a proof of anything. I was asked why we render it this way by a Catholic. While discussing this I produced a Catholic, McKenzie who said it should be rendered “a divine being.” My point is merely that a Catholic should not be dogmatic about this.
Dan
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
I think they are similar because they are both speaking about something that was created in the beginning.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…
In the beginning the Word came to be.
I don’t consider these to be the same beginning. Jesus is called the beginning in Revelation 3:14 - DRA Revelation 3:14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:
In Greek the verb EINAI (to be) is found in John 1:1 as HN (imperfect of EIMI) and is used in the prologue in an inceptive fashion, or to show the entrance into a state, the beginning of something. For example, John 1:10.
The same form of the verb as in John 1:1 is found in verse 10. We know Jesus was not always in the world, but that he came from heaven and BEGAN to be in the world in this narrative account.
Likewise, in the beginning the word BEGAN to be with the Father. Same word, same verbal aspect in both John 1:1 and 1:10.
Dan
F
FCEGM
Guest
Is this demurral due to the JW injunction not to read non-Witness material?
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Not at all. I research my own material and present my own conclusions in my own words. It takes very little energy to post a link to lots of material and make someone else dig out the argument. I am interested in what Catholics can express on their own from their own hearts and minds.
Make sense?
Dan
D
Dogface_Soldier
Guest
Bill was once a thief
Bill was a drug addict
Bill was overweight
Bill was a Mormon
Bill was a friend of Dave’s
Bill was a husband
Bill was a father
These are just some of the examples of the indefinite article plus a noun that indicate distinction. That is a peculiarity of language. Nonetheless, we understand that human beings may at time to time possess or manifest different accidental characteristics, and yet remain unchanged in their essence.
Bill was a drug addict
Bill was overweight
Bill was a Mormon
Bill was a friend of Dave’s
Bill was a husband
Bill was a father
These are just some of the examples of the indefinite article plus a noun that indicate distinction. That is a peculiarity of language. Nonetheless, we understand that human beings may at time to time possess or manifest different accidental characteristics, and yet remain unchanged in their essence.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
I think you have grossly misinterpreted McKenzie’s position. The excerpt you quoted was part of a longer paragraph that, in its entirety, reads:
Essentially, McKenzie’s position is that the term ho theos in the NT is generally reserved, though with significant exceptions, as a title for God the Father. In Jn 1:1, McKenzie’s choice of a different phrase to translate the 2nd occurence of theos was to distinguish the usage of 1st occurrence as a title for God the Father (hence he translates it laboriously as “the God = the Father]”) from the 2nd occurrence which is not used as a title for God the Father, i.e. to distinguish the persons of the Father from the Son, without implying that the divine nature of the Son is any less than the divine nature of the Father.
The similarities between McKenzie’s thoughts and NWT’s text starts and ends with the article “a”. NWT’s choice of “a god” introduces a new veneer of meaning that McKenzie, like many other scholars, would have objected.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
I think you have grossly misinterpreted McKenzie’s position. The excerpt you quoted was part of a longer paragraph that, in its entirety, reads:
McKenzie:
(Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, God, p317. emphasis added)
Essentially, McKenzie’s position is that the term ho theos in the NT is generally reserved, though with significant exceptions, as a title for God the Father.
Dan:
That is precisely my point. I did say that after that he gives some examples where he feels that hO QEOS is used of the Son. My point was threefold: 1) McKenzie renders John 1:1 in a way similar to the NWT 2) McKenzie is a Trinitarian base on other verse 3) McKenzie used language that could be easily misunderstood and which technically is not Trinitarian (ie the Word was a divine being). This is because technically to a Trinitarian the Trinity is a divine being, not one member of the Trinity.
peregrinus_sg:
In Jn 1:1, McKenzie’s choice of a different phrase to translate the 2nd occurence of theos was to distinguish the usage of 1st occurrence as a title for God the Father (hence he translates it laboriously as “the God = the Father]”) from the 2nd occurrence which is not used as a title for God the Father, i.e. to distinguish the persons of the Father from the Son, without implying that the divine nature of the Son is any less than the divine nature of the Father.
Dan:
McKenzie has not implied that the divine nature is less than the Father but when he says the Word was a divine being he implies that the Son is his own being, and that is not Trinitarian dogma.
peregrinus_sg:
The similarities between McKenzie’s thoughts and NWT’s text starts and ends with the article “a”. NWT’s choice of “a god” introduces a new veneer of meaning that McKenzie, like many other scholars, would have objected
Dan:
While McKenzie may say he distinguishes between the Father and Son as persons in this manner, in fact what he is really doing is making the distinction in the Greek between QEOS (God) and hO QEOS apparent in his translation. In reality this is a distinction being made based upon the word QEOS, and not person.
Apparently McKenzie feels the translation and the Word was God implies modalism, and I agree.
I don’t see how this very fine and nuanced distinction can be characterized by you as gross misinterpretation. I use McKenzie’s quote to show Catholics that the NWT rendering is grammatical, not to convince them that the Trinity is not true.
For that, please see (and respond!) to my post on true biblical Christian monotheism which illustrates how bible writers establish the concept of monotheism with hEIS QEOS and MONOS QEOS while at the same time identifying the Father as that one God.
Dan
D
Dogface_Soldier
Guest
ego eimi, in John 8, and in Exodus 3 (?cite?).
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
Pt 1 is false. The only similarity is the article “a”. The meaning that McKenzie wishes to convey is entirely different from the meaning the NWT conveyed.
Pt 3 and the part in bold is your own interpretation and cannot be attributed to McKenzie. You had concluded that by calling the Word a divine being, McKenzie contradicts his Trinitarian faith, i.e. he implies that the being/substance of the Son is different from the substance of the Father. However, this conclusion not a logical neccesity, and McKenzie has disavowed of attempts to impute such an interpretation to him.
A Jewish professor once told the class that there is also a fine line between exegesis and eisegesis. In his article, McKenzie made it very clear that the lack of the pronoun in the 2nd occurence of the term theos in Jn 1:1 was merely a result of the author’s need to distinguish the person of the Father from the person of the Son. McKenzie would likely have no difficulties saying that the Father is also a divine being, just like the Word is a divine being; and affirm that the Word is also consubstantial with the father.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I doubt the NWT editors, who happily wrote that the Word is a god, would be comfortable to say that the Father is a god also. NWT editors saw the lack of a pronoun and extrapolated that this implied a difference in divine nature, hence its version of Jn 1:1. McKenzie says no: the lack of a pronoun points to nothing more than a distinguishing of persons. Isn’t this difference a tad too big to naunce?
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
You seem to have neglected to consider the points that I am making and instead attempt to imply that the translators of the NWT render John 1:1 for the same exact reasons as McKenzie. I had said:
Dan:
McKenzie has not implied that the divine nature is less than the Father but when he says the Word was a divine being he implies that the Son is his own being, and that is not Trinitarian dogma. I claim that McKenzie renders this similar to the NWT and don’t claim McKenzie agrees with our theology, see point #2. You appear to want to argue against a position I did not take.
I also make the point that technically Trinitarians believe that there is one Being of God (hOMOOUSIA) and not three. Do you agree Y/N?
I think you see my point in trying to bring this up and imply that the NWT would never consider the Father as “a God.” Please consider the following from the NWT:
*]NWT Genesis 16:13 Then she began to call the name of Jehovah, who was speaking to her: “You are **a God **of sight,” for she said: “Have I here actually looked upon him who sees me?”
*]NWT Exodus 20:5 You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation, in the case of those who hate me;
*]NWT Mark 12:27 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living. YOU are much mistaken."
*]NWT 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is a God]], not of disorder, but of peace. As in all the congregations of the holy ones,
D
Dogface_Soldier
Guest
Dan,
I’ll admit that I have not read all of what you have posted, but have you addressed (and if not, how do you) Jesus’ claim in John 8:51-59? Is He not identifying himself with the Father?
I’ll admit that I have not read all of what you have posted, but have you addressed (and if not, how do you) Jesus’ claim in John 8:51-59? Is He not identifying himself with the Father?
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
*]John 8:59 - Augustine - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5637744&postcount=30
*]John 8:58 - grammar - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5639793&postcount=37
*]John 8:58 - context - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5639974&postcount=40
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
Blink blink blink. You had tried to enlist McKenzie to support NWT’s mistranslation of Jn 1:1, and tried to imply that McKenzie’s translation supported a non-Trinitarian interpretation to shore up the appearance that the NWT is more accurate. I think I have taken quite enough pains to demonstrate how McKenzie’s translation of Jn 1:1 is, at its meaning, diametrically different from that of the NWT.
Hmm, unless I’m very much mistaken, your choice of phrase “the Son is his own being” (which is never used by McKenzie) is intended to convey the idea that the divine being of the Father is different from the divine being of the Son. So I’ve pointed out that your reading of McKenzie’s phrasing does not hold necessarily, and that McKenzie himself points it out.
Homoousian literally means of the same stuff. As a Latin, we’d say that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 different Persons but they of the same substance.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
D
Dogface_Soldier
Guest
Dan,
taking your responses in turn:
You are imputing to Augustine a meaning not intended (nor I think supported) by the one sentence you have isolated from its context. Even if we allow your interpretation, then it would simply be the case that Augustine was wrong. Such a result would hardly affect the soundness or the historical and theological underpinning of the doctrine of the Trinity.
I think you forget that the phrase “ego eimi” was adapted to function as a title, not the other way around; so your grammatically seamless substitution argument is somewhat inapposite. For example, let’s apply your argument to the referent text, Exodus 3: 14: God could not have meant “I AM” to function as a title, because “God said to Moses ‘I AM that IAM’” would become “God said to Moses ‘Jehovah that Jehovah’”, or “Fred” that “Fred” after substitution, which is not grammatically correct. One of the flaws of your argument is that proves too much; it renders “I AM” incapable of ever referring to Jehovah, by any theology. So one of the flaws in your argument from grammar is that it proves too much, i.e., “I AM” never functioned as a title for God.
The very reason that “I AM” functions as a title is that it conveys the sense that God is pure essence or pure being. Even when used as a noun representing God, “I AM” retains its superficial sense.
Furthermore, if Jesus were simply attempting to indicate that he was eternal, or pre-existent, then “i am” doesn’t make any sense at all. If we remove from “I AM” any connotation of indicating identity with the Father, then the sentence doesn’t make any sense. The sentence, as it would read, neither indicates a pre-existence or eternal existence, nor (by your argument) an identity with the Father; so why was the crowd so upset?
I find this post a bit difficult to follow, and I’m not exactly sure what your argument is here. The context comprises “Fatherhood” only in a derivative way; the central point(s) of the context is Jesus’ identity/authority. Fatherhood comes up as it relates to who Jesus is, and who is an authority to the Jews, God the Father, Father Abraham, and now Jesus as part of the triune Godhead.
I hope I did not come across as terse or uncharitable.
Moving on, have you yet responded to John 10:24-33?
T
teachccd
Guest
I have not read through all of the posts so forgive me if this was answered. If Jesus was “a god” was He a true god or a false god? And how do we correlate John 1:1 with Isaiah 45:5? It seems to me that the Jehovah’s Witnesses will go to the ends of the earth trying to prove the placemant of an article and ignore all of the Gospel of John whereby the author’s intent is to detail the significance of the divinity of Christ. You cannot hide 2000 years of Christian understanding ,which is highly recognized in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, behind the letter “a”.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
I have never seen the word “God” in scripture actually modified with the word “false.” Would you mind showing me that this is a valid category of God since it appears you are attempting represent this term as the only valid alternative to “true God”?
No worries about reading all the posts, but please develop your argument with Isaiah 45:5 and I will respond.
In addition, you are apparently not aware of how this thread on John 1:1 originated. I did not bring up the verse or originate the subject. I am merely responding to those who claim that the rendering “a god” is not grammatical. I cite McKenzie in the thread from my signature file for that reason and not to infer he was not a Trinitarian. I also don’t claim the ECF for my own. However you won’t find any Trinitarians from 2000 years ago either. Certainly no bible writer teaches the doctrine in context.
D
Dan_Parker
Guest
Dogface Soldier:
I think you forget that the phrase “ego eimi” was adapted to function as a title, not the other way around; so your grammatically seamless substitution argument is somewhat inapposite. For example, let’s apply your argument to the referent text, Exodus 3: 14: God could not have meant “I AM” to function as a title, because “God said to Moses ‘I AM that IAM’” would become “God said to Moses ‘Jehovah that Jehovah’”, or “Fred” that “Fred” after substitution, which is not grammatically correct.
Dan:
No, you evidently don’t understand the syntax here. In the Greek Septuagint the phrase is EGW EIMI hO WN which is literally “I am the being.” The EIMI (I am) verb is being as a copulative which is a common usage for the verb. If you don’t know what this means and cannot interact with the Greek google some English grammars, for this also applies to English. The words hO WN have the meaning. So the phrase I am the being is the Greek in the Septuagint.
My point was that EGW EIMI is not being used as a title in John 8:58 or Ex 3:14. The title in Exodus is hO WN (the Being) and the EGW EIMI is used grammatically in a very common way.
In John 8:58 the EGW EIMI is not being used as a copulative like in Ex 3:14, but it is being used grammatically in Greek and EIMI there is the main verb of that sentence. So to interpret the main verb of the sentence to a title robs that sentence of its main verb and makes it unintelligible.
The problem with your attempt to use the Fred argument is that you are not using it with the English rendering of the Greek Septuagint for EGW EIMI hO WN. The Brenton Septuagint renders this as I am the Being, so actually the substitution would be for “the Being” and this would be I am Fred.
Dogface Soldier:
One of the flaws of your argument is that proves too much; it renders “I AM” incapable of ever referring to Jehovah, by any theology. So one of the flaws in your argument from grammar is that it proves too much, i.e., “I AM” never functioned as a title for God.
Dan:
Those who argue for EGW EIMI in John 8:58 to compare to Exodus 3:14 do so on the basis of the Greek Septuagint and an inaccurate understanding of that translation. Of course you have not made an argument from the original language yet, so if what I have written does not apply to you, please do.
However, also be aware that there is no comparison to the Hebrew of Ex 3:14 either.
Dogface Soldier:
The very reason that “I AM” functions as a title is that it conveys the sense that God is pure essence or pure being. Even when used as a noun representing God, “I AM” retains its superficial sense.
Furthermore, if Jesus were simply attempting to indicate that he was eternal, or pre-existent, then “i am” doesn’t make any sense at all. If we remove from “I AM” any connotation of indicating identity with the Father, then the sentence doesn’t make any sense. The sentence, as it would read, neither indicates a pre-existence or eternal existence, nor (by your argument) an identity with the Father; so why was the crowd so upset?
Dan:
If you read my link on the context, it answers that.
Dogface Soldier:
Moving on, have you yet responded to John 10:24-33
Dan:
I have never seen an attempt to use John 10:24-33 as a proof that God is a Trinity. Can you show me your reasoning?
I think you forget that the phrase “ego eimi” was adapted to function as a title, not the other way around; so your grammatically seamless substitution argument is somewhat inapposite. For example, let’s apply your argument to the referent text, Exodus 3: 14: God could not have meant “I AM” to function as a title, because “God said to Moses ‘I AM that IAM’” would become “God said to Moses ‘Jehovah that Jehovah’”, or “Fred” that “Fred” after substitution, which is not grammatically correct.
Dan:
No, you evidently don’t understand the syntax here. In the Greek Septuagint the phrase is EGW EIMI hO WN which is literally “I am the being.” The EIMI (I am) verb is being as a copulative which is a common usage for the verb. If you don’t know what this means and cannot interact with the Greek google some English grammars, for this also applies to English. The words hO WN have the meaning. So the phrase I am the being is the Greek in the Septuagint.
My point was that EGW EIMI is not being used as a title in John 8:58 or Ex 3:14. The title in Exodus is hO WN (the Being) and the EGW EIMI is used grammatically in a very common way.
In John 8:58 the EGW EIMI is not being used as a copulative like in Ex 3:14, but it is being used grammatically in Greek and EIMI there is the main verb of that sentence. So to interpret the main verb of the sentence to a title robs that sentence of its main verb and makes it unintelligible.
The problem with your attempt to use the Fred argument is that you are not using it with the English rendering of the Greek Septuagint for EGW EIMI hO WN. The Brenton Septuagint renders this as I am the Being, so actually the substitution would be for “the Being” and this would be I am Fred.
Dogface Soldier:
One of the flaws of your argument is that proves too much; it renders “I AM” incapable of ever referring to Jehovah, by any theology. So one of the flaws in your argument from grammar is that it proves too much, i.e., “I AM” never functioned as a title for God.
Dan:
Those who argue for EGW EIMI in John 8:58 to compare to Exodus 3:14 do so on the basis of the Greek Septuagint and an inaccurate understanding of that translation. Of course you have not made an argument from the original language yet, so if what I have written does not apply to you, please do.
However, also be aware that there is no comparison to the Hebrew of Ex 3:14 either.
Dogface Soldier:
The very reason that “I AM” functions as a title is that it conveys the sense that God is pure essence or pure being. Even when used as a noun representing God, “I AM” retains its superficial sense.
Furthermore, if Jesus were simply attempting to indicate that he was eternal, or pre-existent, then “i am” doesn’t make any sense at all. If we remove from “I AM” any connotation of indicating identity with the Father, then the sentence doesn’t make any sense. The sentence, as it would read, neither indicates a pre-existence or eternal existence, nor (by your argument) an identity with the Father; so why was the crowd so upset?
Dan:
If you read my link on the context, it answers that.
Dogface Soldier:
Moving on, have you yet responded to John 10:24-33
Dan:
I have never seen an attempt to use John 10:24-33 as a proof that God is a Trinity. Can you show me your reasoning?
T
teachccd
Guest
So then I can conclude that Jesus, while not being a true god , is a derivitive of something other than a false god. Then that leaves us to define what the term “god” actually means. The New testament is loaded with Paul’s teachings on idols and false gods. The Psalms are full of exhortations prohibiting those from worshiping other gods. God is very explicit that there is only one God.
Well, the text should be self explanatory. Isaiah writes the God says that there is no god beside him. How can one justify Jesus being a god who was with God when God says otherwise?
You may not claim the ECF as your own but then you lose your bible since it was the ECF who acknowledged the inspired texts within the Church councils. You won’t find any Jehovah’s Witnesses until the fourth century when a Catholic bishop named Arius came up with the heretical notion that Jesus was a created being and that He was not God. This ran rampant and it took a couple of centuries to stomp out this teaching until it reappeared with Charles Taze Russell in the late 1800’s. So your statement regarding the absence of trinitarians 2000 years ago stems from your ignoring the writings of the first centuries of the Church. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a booklet entitled,“Should you believe in the Trinity?” I read through that thoroughly and referenced the actual writings of the ECF’s who were quoted. As I have noted in the past with your articles that quote with no references again I saw there statements taken completely out of context and distorted to great degrees. In fact, I took the original writings from the ECF’s and showed them to a Jehovah’s Witness friend of mine and much to his dismay he saw how that booklet was deceptive.
Your claim that no bible writer teaches the divinity of Christ in context parallels your other teachings whereby context is not an issue. What bible writer teaches that Jesus was Micheal the Acrhangel yet you hold that as biblical truth. You are so set on biblical grammar that it creates a tunnel vision of the very origins of scripture. How were the 27 books of the New Testament acknowledged? You take a verse like John 1:1 and then try to disprove the very Church that wrote, acknowledged and maintained scripture throughout the centuries.
- Status