John 1:1

[Dan_Parker]

FCEGM:
I think that’s called whistling in the dark since JW theology can’t even identify the proper shape of the Cross - but St. Justin Martyr could:

“But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation. For consider all the things in the world, whether without this form they could be administered or have any community. For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, “The breath before our face is the Lord Christ.” And the power of this form is shown by your own symbols on what are called “vexilla” [banners] and trophies, with which all your state possessions are made, using these as the insignia of your power and government, even though you do so unwittingly. And with this form you consecrate the images of your emperors when they die, and you name them gods by inscriptions. Since, therefore, we have urged you both by reason and by an evident form, and to the utmost of our ability, we know that now we are blameless even though you disbelieve; for our part is done and finished.” First Apology, ch. 55.

Dan:
From what I have been reading in the literature, Justin was seeing the implement of Christ’s death in all sorts of OT events. In many cases these were highly allegorical and forced or relied on double meaning of certain words. Evidently this sort of analysis was quite popular then.

The illustration of the nose would fit the sedila or seat which is mentioned in the New Shaff encyclopedia. That is because it would protrude out the front of the stake to form a seat and not at each side where arms could be affixed in the shape of a cross. The vexilla is in your quote a form of the trophy which I have already addressed is a description of the pole for a sail or flag and not a description of cloth or cross-beam portion of these items.

As for the horns, please see the picture of the animal many consider to have been the source of the horns at geocities.com/magicgoatman/aurochs.html

They are curved upwards and look like they would may a seat which protrudes out the front of the stake and not cross-beams for the hands.

You don’t have an example of how to BBQ a lamb on a spit as Justin describes tht fits the profile of a modern day cross.

Here is my conclusion. Justin clearly uses examples that don’t fit the cross and he also uses other examples in his zeal to find the cross in all sorts of unlikely places in the OT. In this he takes all sorts of liberties to make his point and is quite inventive.

Therefore the most that can be said is that he never presents the modern cross and that he does not always present a single pole for the implement either. All of the examples I have seen fit the sedile. I think Shaff Herzog is correct after all.

 

[Pro_Domina]

The thing is what is it to be a son? It is to share the nature of another, which is a father.

Just that most would try to immagine this in a human context, when it is the human context a symbol of the divine.

So how does this go about? Its a mystery, which if you manage to understand, you’d be God, which is absurd. But this is as far as we get:

Since all eternity, God existed. Now the nature of God is to contemplate Himself. Now He is an infinite being, and only He can contemplate Himself entirely. And upon doing this, He has an idea of Himself. How do we express ideas? In words. So this perfect idea of Himself is so rich that it generates another person, exactly like Him, which is the Word. Now God the Father sees this Word, this other Person, for it is so rich that it is another person, identical to Him, so He loves it infinitely. Now this Word, sees the Father and sees He is the same as He and loves Him infinitely. This love is so strong that it generates a Third Person, the Holy Spirit.

So in the Beginning. What beginning? There was no moment in eternity that this happened. It always was.

What spokesman? Do you not understand the nature of why He is the Word?
There is nothing metaphorical in this. What God said to Moses was metaphorical.
Moses was so powerful that the Pharaoh would consider him like a god, according to the criteria of Pharaoh.

It is awfully ignorant to conclude the Word means spokesman. It is a typical error of a heretic with a desire to prove he is right. With a dictionary in his hand he comes to the conclusion that God had a spokesman since all eternity. Which in itself is absurd, because God never does things without a purpose. A spokesman to speak to who?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Pro Domina:
The thing is what is it to be a son? It is to share the nature of another, which is a father.

Dan:
That is one way of looking at it. Let me ask you this. If you wanted to represent that two persons were equal, what family relationship would you select? Likely brothers and they would share the same nature. How would the Father Son relationship be interpreted in the Jewish Patriarchal society? As someone who is older and has more authority.

Also consider how Scripture relates Fatherhood with the act of Creator;
NAB Malachi 2:10 Have we not all the one Father? Has not the **one God **created us? Why then do we break faith with each other, violating the covenant of our fathers?

The one God is the one Father who is the Creator. This is also the thought at

NJB Isaiah 64:7 And yet, Yahweh, you are our Father; we the clay and you our potter, all of us are the work of your hands.

Pro Domina:
It is awfully ignorant to conclude the Word means spokesman. It is a typical error of a heretic with a desire to prove he is right. With a dictionary in his hand he comes to the conclusion that God had a spokesman since all eternity. Which in itself is absurd, because God never does things without a purpose. A spokesman to speak to who?

Dan:
The prologue of John is intended to be read as a unit. It also has a particular structure which is considered Chiasm. In this structure, John 1:1 and 1:18 are paired together. While LOGOS is certainly a rich word that contains much meaning, one of them certainly expresses the thought in verse 18 where the Son reveals the Father to others.

 

[SimonArizona]

Why did God make a woman for man?

 

[FCEGM]

No, I translated his words from the Greek and looked at the anatomy of the lamb. The Greek KATA does not mean “across” it means “along.” If you think you can put a lamb on a spit that is shaped like a cross, please describe it. It is anatomically impossible.

You translated Justin’s words from the Greek but you still do not know what Justin himself had in mind. Besides the bar down the center, one could easily place a bar or bars through the back and run it through the legs to splay them.

Once again I got the Greek from Mignes.

For the sea is not traversed except that trophy
QALASSA MEN GAR OU TEMNETAI HN MH TOUTO TO TROPAION

which is called a sail abide safe in the ship;
hO KALEITAI ISTION EN TH NHI SWON MEINH

Justin uses the word TROPAION. Notice it is translated trophy? There is a reason for that. Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon says of that word:

TROPAION, TO, a trophy, Lat. tropaeum, Trag., etc.; i.e. a monument of the enemy’s defeat (troph, ii), consisting of arms taken from the enemy, hung on trees or posts;

Justin was describing the mast of a ship, and illustrated it with a word that means tree or post. The Romans made more elaborate trophies or monuments of their military conquests. Here is a picture of one. (flickr.com/photos/andreeainjapan/3380553210/)

That’s two down. Your evidence on Justin is dwindling to nothing

Nope, not at all. Notice that the lexicon you quote says that the enemies’ trophies can be hung on trees, which can certainly indicate not just a stump but a tree with branches from which to hang things - especially numerous items taken from the enemy. You, however, take trophy necessarily having one physical description, one of being similar to a stele. Further, such trophies were often formed to resemble the figure of a warrior; here is an example in stone of what a trophy near a battle site would look like:

vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/trophy1.jpg

Further, Justin indicates that the trophy is the sail of the ship, not a mast (“For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship”); a sail that is hung from the mast via a support cross-piece (whatever the nautical term is) - just as does the vexilla.

 

[SimonArizona]

That is one way of looking at it. Let me ask you this. If you wanted to represent that two persons were equal, what family relationship would you select? Likely brothers and they would share the same nature. How would the Father Son relationship be interpreted in the Jewish Patriarchal society? As someone who is older and has more authority.

Any father and son are just as equal as any two brothers when we are discussing nature. Father is older than son for mankind because we have to wait for time to pass before we can produce a son. Not so with God, the Father doesn’t have to wait for any amount of eternity to roll by before he is able to have a Son.

It is a Father and Son relationship, not brothers, because all that the Son has he has receives it from the Father, even his very existence. What we are claiming is that the Father never at one time existed with out His Son, without His Word, without His
Image.

 

[SimonArizona]

The Bible says that the two theives were crucified with Jesus, one at his left* hand* one at his right hand. not on Jesus’ left and right sides.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Again you take the Father-Son relationship of humans as the source of the analogy rather the human relationship a symbol of the Trinity.
Also you undermine the generation of God the Son. He comes from an infinitely rich contemplation of the Father of Himself, which is so rich that it generates another person.

And regardless of how St. John’s gospel is to be read, it clear speaks about a “time” before the Word became flesh. So what? God created a “spokesman” before anything needed to spoken to? Illogical. Take for example the angels. They were created, like all rational creatures, to adore God. But they also, for the same reason, have a function. Angels are made to govern. But they cannot be created to govern without anything to govern. That is why heaven had to be created at the same time, because angels should have something to govern and nothing should be without government.

Spokesman to an empty room?

 

[Pro_Domina]

Read newadvent.org/summa/1061.htm

Article 4. Whether the angels were created in the empyrean heaven?

 

[Dan_Parker]

FCEGM:
You translated Justin’s words from the Greek but you still do not know what Justin himself had in mind. Besides the bar down the center, one could easily place a bar or bars through the back and run it through the legs to splay them.

Dan:
I don’t believe you are thinking this through. I suggest you draw a diagram for yourself. The link I gave shows that two smaller bars at right angles would be needed, one for the front legs and one for the hind legs. Putting one through the back would not run through the legs and indeed the legs would not reach. It is anatomically impossible.

In addition, the word PALIN indicates that the second skewer would be inserted in a similar manner. This harmonizes with the word KATA being used to indicate that it was being inserted along the carcass, not across it. I could find no instance where KATA could mean this in Greek.

FCEGM:
Nope, not at all. Notice that the lexicon you quote says that the enemies’ trophies can be hung on trees, which can certainly indicate not just a stump but a tree with branches from which to hang things - especially numerous items taken from the enemy.

Dan:
The quote says: TROPAION, TO, a trophy, Lat. tropaeum, Trag., etc.; i.e. a monument of the enemy’s defeat (troph, ii), consisting of arms taken from the enemy, hung on trees or posts;

What do trees and posts have in common? The trunk of the tree. Ever seen branches on a post?

FCEGM:
You, however, take trophy necessarily having one physical description, one of being similar to a stele. Further, such trophies were often formed to resemble the figure of a warrior; here is an example in stone of what a trophy near a battle site would look like: vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/trophy1.jpg

Dan:
I agree that the trophy could be anything, but the word refers to what the trophy is placed upon. You provided one and I showed you a different one. What they both have in common is a single pedestal with no horizontal beam upon which the trophy is hung.

FCEGM:
Further, Justin indicates that the trophy is the sail of the ship, not a mast (“For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship”); a sail that is hung from the mast via a support cross-piece (whatever the nautical term is) - just as does the vexilla.

Dan:
No, the Greek word TROPAION refers to the support for the sail and not the sail itself. Taking your illustration of the tree in this example also does not work. It would not work to take a tree with natural branches to form a sail. It would never go anywhere! In addition there are many sails that don’t use a cross piece.

Since the word TROPAION means tree or post and post is not ambiguous we should inform our view of tree based upon what we know, particularly when a tree with full branches does not make any sense in any of these applications. I have never seen a tree with one vertical trunk and one horizontal branch dissecting it at the center

 

[Danno2281]

Pro Domina:
The thing is what is it to be a son? It is to share the nature of another, which is a father.

Dan:

Also consider how Scripture relates Fatherhood with the act of Creator;

NAB Malachi 2:10 Have we not all the one Father? Has not the **one God **created us? Why then do we break faith with each other, violating the covenant of our fathers?

The one God is the one Father who is the Creator.
​

Quite possibly the one father referred to is Abraham.​

 

[Pro_Domina]

Quite possibly the one father referred to is Abraham.

When one says that God is the Father of all it is wrong because of the meaning they want to give to it. You must be baptized to be a son of God, because otherwise the divine grace is not with you, grace being a created participation of the life of God.

But it is true in the sense that since we are created in image and likeness of God, we in a way are sons of God, because something of His Nature is within us.

But not the very life of God. A non-baptized person is as much as a son of God as a statue made by sculptor is.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Quite possibly the one father referred to is Abraham.

I don’t see how Abraham could be the one Father. In Mal 2:10 that one Father is the one God who is also the creator.

NAB Malachi 2:10 Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us? Why then do we break faith with each other, violating the covenant of our fathers?

The Jews could call Abraham their Father:
NAB John 8:39 They answered and said to him, “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham

However the one Father is God.
NAB John 8:41 You are doing the works of your father!" (So) they said to him, “We are not illegitimate. We have one Father, God.”

 

[Dan_Parker]

Pro Domina:
Again you take the Father-Son relationship of humans as the source of the analogy rather the human relationship a symbol of the Trinity.

Also you undermine the generation of God the Son. He comes from an infinitely rich contemplation of the Father of Himself, which is so rich that it generates another person.

Dan:
Never heard that one before. Some of the early theologians considered that the Son was “in” the Father but not yet a person and then became a person before the creation of the universe. Is that what you believe as well?

Pro Domina:
And regardless of how St. John’s gospel is to be read, it clear speaks about a “time” before the Word became flesh. So what? God created a “spokesman” before anything needed to spoken to? Illogical. Take for example the angels. They were created, like all rational creatures, to adore God. But they also, for the same reason, have a function. Angels are made to govern. But they cannot be created to govern without anything to govern. That is why heaven had to be created at the same time, because angels should have something to govern and nothing should be without government.

Spokesman to an empty room?

When Abram was renamed Abraham which means Father of a Crowd, he had not yet become Father to a Multitude.

NJB Genesis 17:5 And you are no longer to be called Abram; your name is to be Abraham, for I am making you father of many nations.

In John 1:1 the LOGOS or Word was created in the beginning for the purpose of being the spokesman or Word of God, as well as his master worker (cp Pr 8:22-30)

 

[Tomster]

:coffeeread::coffeeread:
John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

By this first sentence, John shows plainly that he has set out to prove that Jesus, the Man of Galilee is Christ, the Son of God. Now as Sonship of God could be taken in different senses, John exponds the natural incommunicable eternal sonship of Christ. Diverging opinions exist concerning the sense of the ev apxn. Cyril and Origen understand by this apxn the Eternal Father, and they believe that John wished to convey by such expression the primal source in the Father whence sprang the Son. Such exegesis is also favored by later Thomists. I believe such opinion to be erroneous and subversive of the plan of the Evangelist. In the first place, if John wished to convey such an idea, he would not have used such a harsh expression. God is the apxn of all things; but to designate God thus, without any explanation, is a harsh, difficult expression. We believe that, had he wished to convey such a thought, he would have said ev Oew or ev tw IIatpi was the Word. Again, certainly he uses ev apxn in the second verse in the same sense as in the first. Now, if we give to it in this second verse the sense set down by Origen, it would be equivalent to saying: “This was in God with God,” which is a plain absurdity. We place, then as a certain opinion that the ev apxn refers to duration. The Gnostic heresy asserted that Jesus was not before his incarnation. To refute their position, John goes back to the beginning of things, and sets forth the existence of the Word before time was. John’s intention is to proclaimby this first clause the eternity of the Word. Now, eternity can neither be adequately conceived nor described by a finite intelligence. This being so, John makes the best effort that human speech will permit to describe the infinite, preexisting life of the Word. That apxn does not mark a definite point taken as a terminus a quo from which time the Word which had not existed before began to exist. It is simply the projecting of the existence of the Word back into the boundless duration of Eternity. It is not the position of a point where existence began, but the negation of any point where non-existence could be predicated. This concept is strengthened by the use of the imperfect nv which signifies continuance of duration. Now the Word had a beginning, but not a temporal beginning. The Word had a beginning of origin in being begotten of the Father, but this genesis was coeternal with the essence of God, hence John rightly refutes any position of a point when the Word was not.

More later. Need :coffeeread:

 

[Tomster]

The apxn here then has not the signification that Moses gave to it in Genesis. There it meant simply that the definite point at which time began. Here it means the negation of any point at which the eternal duration of the Son of God could not be predicated of him. Thus we can say with perfect orthodoxy that God was from the beginning, meaning by the beginning the human mode of designating eternal preexisting duration. If John meant to fix a period at which the Word began, he could have not used the imperfect tense nv. Such tense of the verb signifies preexisting duration. Hence, John says in effect: “Go back to the indefinite conceivable ages; exhaust the intellect in going back and going back, and you see always at every point the Word prexisting, coeternally existing.” The Nicene Council made use of this classical text to prove the coeternity of the Word against the Arians who defended this formula: “Erat quando non erat.” The application of this text by the Council to establish the eternity of the Word serves as an authentic interpretation for us.

No other writer of the New Testament save John designates the Son of God as the Aoyos, the Word. The reasons for this are evident. No other writer ex professo describes the genesis of the essential Son of God, and hence such term did not come within their scope. In the days of John the Platonic philosophy had filled men’s minds with ideal creations. The philosophy of Plato made the essences of all things separate from matter. Now the Gnostics, making use of this trend of thought, attacked the divine sonship of Jesus in that plane of thought. The world had need to know, as far as it is given for man to know, something of this intellectual act by which the Eternal Father begot the Son. Hence the Holy Spirit moved John to outline the mode of birth of the only begotten Son of God. Man, who derives his ideas of sonship from the carnal process of procreation, needed some clearer concept of the generation of God’s Eternal Son. The Platonic philosophy had paved the way for men to understand this truth. Now as John was to describe the generation of the Son, no other term would convey that concept as forcibly as Aoyos.

From an anology between things human and things divine we may gain, by introspection into our own intellectual processes, some knowledge of the act of the Deity that begot the Word.

When we form an idea in our minds of anything, we generate an exact ideal counterpart of the thing in our intellect. That creation is accidental in us, and adds nothing to the creatures of the universe. That image of the thing existing in the intellect is called the verbum mentale. Now God from all eternity comprehended his essence and formed an adequate idea thereof. That idea exactly corresponds in everything to his essence, and is a subsistent individual. This is the Aoyos, the Son of God, indistinct in nature, because it is simply the very nature of God as by God comprehended; distinct in person, because the idea is subsistent. Neither is the Word the intellect of the Father. That faculty is identical with the essential nature of God, and is equally and indivisibly possessed by the three divine persons, but the Word is the fruit of the divine intellect informed by the essence of God. Lactantius, Tertullian and others understood by the Logos the externalized word of God and thus translated it “Sermo.” Thus also it is translated in the Persian version. This is evidently an erroneous concept. The Son of God is not the spoken word, but the internal, intellectual, subsistent image of the comprehended divine essence. Such concept formed the basis of the objection of Arius: “Multa verba loquitur Deus; quodnam igitur ex istis verbis Filium et Verbum unigenitum Patris esse dicimus?”

cont.

 

[Dan_Parker]

:coffeeread::coffeeread:
John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

By this first sentence, John shows plainly that he has set out to prove that Jesus, the Man of Galilee is Christ, the Son of God. Now as Sonship of God could be taken in different senses, John exponds the natural incommunicable eternal sonship of Christ. Diverging opinions exist concerning the sense of the ev apxn. Cyril and Origen understand by this apxn the Eternal Father, and they believe that John wished to convey by such expression the primal source in the Father whence sprang the Son. Such exegesis is also favored by later Thomists. I believe such opinion to be erroneous and subversive of the plan of the Evangelist. In the first place, if John wished to convey such an idea, he would not have used such a harsh expression. God is the apxn of all things; but to designate God thus, without any explanation, is a harsh, difficult expression. We believe that, had he wished to convey such a thought, he would have said ev Oew or ev tw IIatpi was the Word. Again, certainly he uses ev apxn in the second verse in the same sense as in the first. Now, if we give to it in this second verse the sense set down by Origen, it would be equivalent to saying: “This was in God with God,” which is a plain absurdity. We place, then as a certain opinion that the ev apxn refers to duration. The Gnostic heresy asserted that Jesus was not before his incarnation. To refute their position, John goes back to the beginning of things, and sets forth the existence of the Word before time was. John’s intention is to proclaimby this first clause the eternity of the Word. Now, eternity can neither be adequately conceived nor described by a finite intelligence. This being so, John makes the best effort that human speech will permit to describe the infinite, preexisting life of the Word. That apxn does not mark a definite point taken as a terminus a quo from which time the Word which had not existed before began to exist. It is simply the projecting of the existence of the Word back into the boundless duration of Eternity. It is not the position of a point where existence began, but the negation of any point where non-existence could be predicated. This concept is strengthened by the use of the imperfect nv which signifies continuance of duration. Now the Word had a beginning, but not a temporal beginning. The Word had a beginning of origin in being begotten of the Father, but this genesis was coeternal with the essence of God, hence John rightly refutes any position of a point when the Word was not.

More later. Need :coffeeread:

Thanks for the quote. It is helpful and I mean that sincerely. Would you mind identifying the writer and also giving a link for it to an online source?

What this anonymous quote shows is that it is not out of the question that ARXH is a reference to the beginning of the LOGOS, in the Father. As for the description of the force of the imperfect HN, I have already shown that in the prologue itself in verse 10 the word has an inceptive force. We know that the Word was not always in the Word, but that he came to be in the World. Thus the verbal aspect of the imperfect HN is continuous at the point in time being discussed (in the beginning) but not unbounded to the past.

 

[Tomster]

In our concept, in which we make the generation of the Word to be the internal, intellectual action by which God forms in his mind as adequate subsistent image of his own divine essence, we can palinly see that there could be but one generation in God. The Word was the fruit of the one necessary intellection by which God comprehended his essence, and caused to emanate therefrom an exact subsistent image, and such act can be but one.

The old heretics objected that it was a contradiction in terms to say that the Son proceeded from the Father and yet was coeternal with the Father; for, they said, being precedes action, and therefore the Father must have existed previously to the act of generation of the Son. St. Augustine responded by appealing to the example of fire. “If,” he says, " there were an eternal fire, its splendor would also be eternal, although proceeding from the fire, as a property. In like manner a bush overhanging a fountain, if it were eternal, would have have an eteranl shadow in the water." If the material sun ithe heavens were eternal, its emanating light would be eternal. There is a priority of causality but not of time in such cases; and so in God, the Father and the Word are co-eternal, although the Word proceeded from the Father.

It is interesting to observe the approaches of the pagan philosophers to the mysteries of the Trinity. Thus, for instance, Plato and others designated the Father as vous, the mind, and the Son as aoyos, the offspring of the mind. The saying of Plato is celebrated: “Monos genuit monadem, et in se reflexit ardorem,” which nearly corresponds to the Christian formula of the Trinity. The Father begat the Son, and the subsistent act of love existing between the Father and Son is the Holy Spirit.

In the opening clause John sets forth two things, the eternity of the Word, and the Word’s mode of being. The first is conveyed by the ev apxn, the second by the term Aoyos, which essentially points to emanation from some intellectual principle. He next proceeds to set forth the union between this eternal emanation and its begetting principle: “The Word was with God.” There is clearly conveyed in this phrase the separate personality of the Eternal Father and the Eternal Word, since, if the Word was “with” the Father, he must have been individually distinct from him. This passage refutes the Sabellians, since it would be absurd to say that the Word, if it were personally identical with the Father, was with God. Again, the phrase signifies the eternal union of the Son and the Father. God here does not signify the divine essence but only the person of the Father.

cont.

 

[Tomster]

“And the Word was God.” Here is signified, as a principle and main import, the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. This is one of the classical texts against the Arians. These asserted that in the eternal person of God there were intellection and love, but that God became the Father only from that time that he produced his external Word as his first creature and through him the other creatures of the universe. Arius might have sought authority for his heresy in a possible perverse interpretation of the preceding words. He might have said that the Word began in the beginning, and was with God but was not God. But this last clause precludes such opinion, and establishes the consubstantiality of the Son of God, against which the Arian heresy waged a long and terrible conflict. Although in the juxtaposition of the words Oeos is placed first, Aoyos is the subject of the sentence, and Oeos the predicate. Patrizi strenuously asserts that God here that God here denotes the person of the Son. He argues that, as in the preceding clause Oeos must have a personal signification, John could not have here changed its import. He attempts to establish that God, signifying the divine essence, can not be predicated of the Son. This we must consider erroneuos. It is absurd to say that John to suit the exigencies of his sublime narration could not have given to these terms that signification which comported best with his design, even though such would cause an abrupt change in the senses of those terms. Patrizi’s second argument is dogmatic. He assserts that, if we make Oeos the predicate and give it the signification of the divine nature, since such divine nature is indivisible, it would follow that the Word was the entire divine nature. This conclusion he characterizes as absurd. We admit the conclusion and believe that it is consonant with the dogmatic truth of the divinity of Christ. Certain it is that in Christ was the divinity. Now, as that divinity is essentially indivisible, the whole divinity was in him; therefore, there is an identity between the Word and the divine nature. How the same indivisible nature can be wholly in three distinct persons is the mystery of the Trinity. Had Patrizi characterized his conclusions as mysterious, we would have been one with him; but we reject his imputation that the proposition is absurd. We hold then, as a certain opinion that God here signifies the divine nature, and that John wishes to teach us the consubstantiality of the Son by telling us that he was the same divine nature with the Father. Our opinion is strengthened by the omission of the article before Oeos in the Greek text. In the preceding clause, where Oeos means a certain divine person, it is preceded by the article. The omission of such article manifests that such term signifies a nature. In fact, John wishes in this phrase to preclude the belief that there were two Gods. The preceding two clauses had established two separate subsistences, one of which had been generated from the other. Now to prevent one from passing from this personal distinction to an essential distinction, he asserts that the Word is the same divine nature as the Father, in one undivided, indivisible Deity.

 

[Tomster]

Thanks for the quote. It is helpful and I mean that sincerely. Would you mind identifying the writer and also giving a link for it to an online source?

What this anonymous quote shows is that it is not out of the question that ARXH is a reference to the beginning of the LOGOS, in the Father. As for the description of the force of the imperfect HN, I have already shown that in the prologue itself in verse 10 the word has an inceptive force. We know that the Word was not always in the Word, but that he came to be in the World. Thus the verbal aspect of the imperfect HN is continuous at the point in time being discussed (in the beginning) but not unbounded to the past.

Links? Links? Since when do you read them or take any of them seriously when we provide them for you?

The information I gave above was not for your benefit. You are truly blind to the Truth. I put this information out there for possible lurkers who might be considering your heretical sect.

BTW- The information I gave above is anything but anonymous.