John 1:1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_Parker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LionHeart777 said:
Here is St. Theophilus of Antioch on the Word and John 1:1, in his “…To Autolycus ca. *A. D. * 181]…” (Jurgens, 73.)

“You will say, then, to me: ‘You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?’ Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person… of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds,the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But **when **God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered… the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’… showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, ‘The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.’ The Word, then, being God, and being naturally… produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.”(ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xxii.html) (accessed 9/ 26/ 09)

other work utilized:
The Faith of The Early Fathers: Volume 1, Jurgens, William A. The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota:1970. (pages 73, 76 and 410)
Click to expand...
Not sure what point you are making here, and I will take the liberty of **bolding **parts to make my points:


  1. *]The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place
    *]at first God was alone, and the Word in Him (regarding John 1:1)

    Note that Theophilus holds the same view as Justin that the Father has a different nature than the Son because he cannot be found in a place. Also, he interprets John 1:1 to the effect that God was alone and then the Word came forth from him. This is indeed the beginning of the Word as a person, although the Word could be considered eternal because of having been an attribute of the Father, this is not the orthodox teaching of today.

    Thanks for that quote.
 
LionHeart777 said:
Athenagoras on the Logos

“…But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos λογικός]); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements.** ‘The Lord,’ it says, ‘made me, the beginning of His ways to His works.’ Proverbs 8:22** The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and appointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all.” (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians) (newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm) (accessed 9/ 26/ 09) (emphasis mine)

I believe Jurgens gives a date of "…[ca. *A. D.
Click to expand...
177]…" (Jurgens, pg. 69), for this work:

Jurgens as a source (including his “Doctrinal Index”):
(The Faith of The Early Fathers: Volume 1, Jurgens, William A. The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota:1970. (pages 69-70 and ?417 (point # 256?))

This quote form Athenagoras is interesting, because he ties in Pro 8:22 with John 1:1 which means that he did not consider Pr 8:22 to be with respect to the incarnation.
 
LionHeart777 said:
going back to Justin Dan for a sec.,

in Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 1, in the Doctrinal index under the the subject “The Trinity”, in point #236, under the specific topic “In regard to the theophanies:” (page 417), he refers the reader to the following from St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology (page 54):

“These words [of the Prophets], then, have become the proof that Jesus Christ is the Son and Apostle of God, being of old the Word, appearing at one time in the guise of fire, and at another time as an incorporeal image. And now, by the will of God and for the sake of the human race, He has become man, and has born all the torments which the demons instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him. . . . And again, as we have shown, Jesus, while still in the midst of the [Jews], said: ‘No one knows the Father except the Son nor the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son has given a revelation (17).’”

(The Faith of The Early Fathers: Volume 1, Jurgens, William A. The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota:1970. (pages 54 and 417.))
Click to expand...
Dan:
It is Jurgens who calls it a theophany, not Justin. Justin distinguishes the Son from God the Creator. At most this can be a Christophany. Jehovah’s Witnesses also teach that the angel sent various times by the Father was the Son.

So, regarding what you said way back in the thread about Justin not speaking of Jesus as a theophany, I diasgree, as I believe Jurgen’s sees in the above passage a reference to Jesus as a theophony.
 
Dan_Parker said:
Dan:
The problem is that you insist on a interpretation of HN as meaning eternity into the past (ie always existed), in spite of the fact that the Word was “in” the beginning and not before the beginning.

What this interpretation attempts to do here is to convert
EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS (in the beginning was the Word) to
PRO ARXH HN hO LOGOS (before the beginning was the Word).

There are no examples of HN which have this sense. What I have done is showed just a few examples in the GNT where HN cannot have this meaning.

What would be helpful is if you would provide a legitimate example other than your proof-text of John 1:1 where it means always existing.

Also, while the Vulgate may be the official Catholic translation, both the NJB and NAB carry the imprimatur and nil obstat, do they not? I should be able to exegete the passage using those texts on CAF without criticism.

Now, here is another example I should have thought of before:
NAB 1 John 1:1 What was = HN **from **the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we looked upon and touched with our hands concerns the Word of life –

The preposition APO (from) here can in no way be interpreted as that the Word existed before the beginning. In fact the context mandates that the existence of the Word start FROM the beginning.

The DR has the same rendering as there is no ambiguity in the Greek (or Latin I presume).
Click to expand...
You insist on making the Eternal subject to time. There is no beginning for the Eternal, only for us temporal creatures. There was no time when God was not, nor is He subject to temporal conditions like “beginning”, but WE are, and so men must have a referenced starting point because we think in terms of time. You are trying to subject God to man’s limitation. God always KNOWS Who He Is, and that intellectual activity is what the LOGOS is all about. That is why the Logos is pros ton Theon, not in companionship but in relationship. Before the beginning makes no sense at all when speaking of the Eternal which by its very nature has to terminus a quo and no terminus ad quem, no beginning and no end.
 
Danno2281 said:
You insist on making the Eternal subject to time. There is no beginning for the Eternal, only for us temporal creatures. There was no time when God was not, nor is He subject to temporal conditions like “beginning”, but WE are, and so men must have a referenced starting point because we think in terms of time. You are trying to subject God to man’s limitation. God always KNOWS Who He Is, and that intellectual activity is what the LOGOS is all about. That is why the Logos is pros ton Theon, not in companionship but in relationship. Before the beginning makes no sense at all when speaking of the Eternal which by its very nature has to terminus a quo and no terminus ad quem, no beginning and no end.
Click to expand...
Dan:
You are assuming the Son is Eternal. That is circular reasoning. The last quote I gave you was 1 John 1:1 which is closely related to John 1:1 and in this one the word HN is used to say that the LOGOS was from the beginning. This is a description of the EN ARXH HN in John 1:1, in the beginning the Word was. 1 John 1:1 refutes the notion that John 1:1 teaches the Word already existed, in fact if you read some of the recent quotes provided by LionHeart777, Theophilus says with regards to John 1:1 that
John, says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’… showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him.

While they could say the Word was eternal as an attribute of God they would agree that he had a beginning as a person and before this God was alone.

Therefore in this view the person of the Word was not already in existence at the beginning in John 1:1.
 
Note that Theophilus holds the same view as Justin that the Father has a different nature than the Son because he cannot be found in a place. Also, he interprets John 1:1 to the effect that God was alone and then the Word came forth from him. This is indeed the beginning of the Word as a person, although the Word could be considered eternal because of having been an attribute of the Father, this is not the orthodox teaching of today.
Click to expand...
Dan,

for both Justin and Theophilus it seems to me that,God the Father (not God the Son) cannot be contained in a place. Not God the Son–I think you are reading w/ JW goggles–these quotes and more are available in Jurgens for anyone who wishes to see.

Also your comment about, “different nature” appears to be eisegesis in my opinion. If you want, I will look for ECF’s in Jurgens “Doctrinal Index” regarding the Father and The Son being of the same substance.

I will probably not convince you that ECF’s taught that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God–yet God is One, however, I think that the evidence is there for others to see.

Here is Athenagoras again:

"
“…But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos λογικός]); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter…” (newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm) (accessed 9/ 26/ 09) (emphasis mine)

the Word was not “created” according to John or Athenagoras-- only according to Arian doctrine. But…if we can’t agree on Scripture, is it surprising that we can’t agree on what the ECF’s teach? Thus, Catholics and Orthodox will stand on Scripture and Tradition, having that lineage that goes all the way back to the Apostles, and the JW’s can stand on, I would argue, their faulty interpretation of Scripture, supported by a translation of the Scriptures that I think does not have a very stellar scholarly reputation.🤷

Re: your response about Jurgens disagreeing w/ you–

I could turn what you said around and say that Dan said Justin doesn’t view Jesus as a theophany…not Justin. (at least according to Jurgen’s, the Patristics scholar.)
 
Dan,
I think I lacked a little self control…
forgive me if was unkind in my last post…
 
LionHeart777:

Dan,
for both Justin and Theophilus it seems to me that,God the Father (not God the Son) cannot be contained in a place. Not God the Son–I think you are reading w/ JW goggles–these quotes and more are available in Jurgens for anyone who wishes to see.

Dan:
Yes, that was my point, that God, the Father, cannot be contained in a place. If it was the Son then the Son would be greater than the Father and that would not reflect either JW theology or Justin’s theology.

I said:
Note that Theophilus holds the same view as Justin that the Father has a different nature than the Son because** he = the Father] **cannot be found in a place. Also, he interprets John 1:1 to the effect that God was alone and then the Word came forth from him. This is indeed the beginning of the Word as a person, although the Word could be considered eternal because of having been an attribute of the Father, this is not the orthodox teaching of today.

LionHeart777:
Also your comment about, “different nature” appears to be eisegesis in my opinion. If you want, I will look for ECF’s in Jurgens “Doctrinal Index” regarding the Father and The Son being of the same substance.

Dan:
Don’t know who Jurgens is, but in Trinitarian theology the three persons are the same type of person. To Justin if the Father could not be contained to a place it would need to be his Being, not his person.

LionHeart777:
I will probably not convince you that ECF’s taught that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God–yet God is One, however, I think that the evidence is there for others to see.

Dan:
Justin did not call the Son Creator or God in the same sense as he did the Father.

LionHeart777:
Here is Athenagoras again:

"
“…But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos λογικός]); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter…” (newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm) (accessed 9/ 26/ 09) (emphasis mine)

the Word was not “created” according to John or Athenagoras-- only according to Arian doctrine. But…if we can’t agree on Scripture, is it surprising that we can’t agree on what the ECF’s teach?

Dan:
I agree Athenagoras did not consider the Son to be created. He considered the Father to have begot the Son from something inside himself. Of course he just made that part up because it fits the Greek philosophy of that day. However he did teach that John 1:1 and Prov 8:22 were of the same event. And he did consider the Son was in the Father from the beginning and then became a person when he was begotten, just like the other two you quoted.

LionHeart777:
Thus, Catholics and Orthodox will stand on Scripture and Tradition, having that lineage that goes all the way back to the Apostles, and the JW’s can stand on, I would argue, their faulty interpretation of Scripture, supported by a translation of the Scriptures that I think does not have a very stellar scholarly reputation.🤷

Re: your response about Jurgens disagreeing w/ you–

I could turn what you said around and say that Dan said Justin doesn’t view Jesus as a theophany…not Justin. (at least according to Jurgen’s, the Patristics scholar.)

Dan:
I don’t know you Jurgens is, and just because he said this was a theophany does not mean Justin did. Did Justin use the word theophany? I don’t see that in your or Jurgen’s quote.
 
Dan_Parker said:
Dan:
You are assuming the Son is Eternal. That is circular reasoning. The last quote I gave you was 1 John 1:1 which is closely related to John 1:1 and in this one the word HN is used to say that the LOGOS was from the beginning. This is a description of the EN ARXH HN in John 1:1, in the beginning the Word was. 1 John 1:1 refutes the notion that John 1:1 teaches the Word already existed, in fact if you read some of the recent quotes provided by LionHeart777, Theophilus says with regards to John 1:1 that
John, says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’… showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him.

While they could say the Word was eternal as an attribute of God they would agree that he had a beginning as a person and before this God was alone.

Therefore in this view the person of the Word was not already in existence at the beginning in John 1:1.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that there was a before**** the beginning, a “time before time”, which is self-contradictory. “First” is a philosophical construct in Theophilus, not a temporal construct.
 
Danno2281 said:
You are assuming that there was a before**** the beginning, a “time before time”, which is self-contradictory. “First” is a philosophical construct in Theophilus, not a temporal construct.
Click to expand...
It does not matter what term you use. A modern day Catholic would NEVER say that the Father was alone, would they?
 
Dan_Parker said:
It does not matter what term you use. A modern day Catholic would NEVER say that the Father was alone, would they?
Click to expand...
Let’s look more fully at the quote:"

but as truth expounds,the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered… the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’… showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him."
The Word that always exists, being His own mind and heart, was AT FIRST in Him.
The existing Word had not yet been uttered (a temporal expression used to express a non- temporal condition) as the creative force. Theophilus, far from separating the Word and the Father, adamantly professes their unity.
Indeed, the Logos being His own mind and heart, how could the Father (the archon) have wished or determined to create apart from the Logos?
 
Dan_Parker said:
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)
Click to expand...
Then you aren’t even a capable armchair theologian. It is doctrine of the Church.
It is not that He became a person at Creation. The thing is that this happened in Eternity, but it was always like so, which is a mystery, that is where our limit reaches.
 
Danno2281:
Let’s look more fully at the quote:"

but as truth expounds,the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered… the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’… showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him."

The Word that always exists, being His own mind and heart, was AT FIRST in Him.
The existing Word had not yet been uttered (a temporal expression used to express a non- temporal condition) as the creative force. Theophilus, far from separating the Word and the Father, adamantly professes their unity.
Indeed, the Logos being His own mind and heart, how could the Father (the archon) have wished or determined to create apart from the Logos?

Dan:
Yes, I get that part. At first, when the Word was in the Father but not yet begotten as a person the Father was alone. I therefore asked the question that remains unanswered:

A modern day Catholic would NEVER say that the Father was alone, would they?
 
Pro_Domina said:
Then you aren’t even a capable armchair theologian. It is doctrine of the Church.
It is not that He became a person at Creation. The thing is that this happened in Eternity, but it was always like so, which is a mystery, that is where our limit reaches.
Click to expand...
Ahh, a mystery… well that explains it 😉
 
Dan_Parker said:
The Jews have/had a sacred tradition as well. But if one holds that tradition over Sacred Scripture what one has will be taken away from them. That is what happened to the Jews, as Jesus said: You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Mt 15:6)
Click to expand...
1 1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? 2 They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal.” 3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of God 3 for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ 5 4 But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” 6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, 5 but their hearts are far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’”

Note who Jesus was talking to and what He was referring to and most importantly whose traditions He spoke of.; “your tradtions”.
Traditions they practiced against the commandments. Specifically the example of dishonoring their parents.

You have no knowledge of what Jesus referred to specifically as tradition and you do not accept the Apostolic Traditions established by the Apostles which Jesus Himself sent them to teach and which has been honored throughout Christian History since their teachings began. If you could be honest enough to discuss the real Bible contents and compare the teachings to see they have never changed throughout the true historic records, you would see it is the JW literature that nullified the word of God for the sake of one man’s word. Apostolic Tradition is the Teacher; the Sacred Scripture is the written and inspired word that the teachers themselves wrote but not in the entirety of the teachings. The written word came from the teachers who taught the Traditions. Is that so difficult to understand? IS so, let me provide you quotes from the JW web sites of Russell that specifically defy scripture in both OT and NT so he could promote his own distorted beliefs.

What is the general meaning of tradition; an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)

JW tradition…
Do you not have regular gatherings?
Do you not have service meetings?
Do you not discuss (controllably I might add) your version of scripture?
Do you not follow specific teachings required of your belief system?
Do you not hold procedural public Judgments against those who you judge to be sinful?
Do you not disfellowship under governing rules established by the fellowship?
Do the families of the disfellowship have to completely shun their family member while disfellowshiped by order?
Do you not have to follow guidelines to be accepted into or back to the fellowship?
Do you not have specific elders who determine on their own they are the saved and only they can accept the Passover meal?

Should I go on? Or is it because it is the JW these established regular customs and practices (traditions) should not be called traditions of the 150 + year old belief system you belong to?
 
Dan_Parker said:
Ahh, a mystery… well that explains it 😉
Click to expand...
It amazes me how the JW add a little word to their Bible and change “God” to “god” to claim Jesus was not referred to as God. The problem is, there is only ONE God so no matter how a JW would classify another even as “a god” it is recognition of an additional God small ‘g’ or not. Now the fact is with all the interpretations there are , the vast majority even among non-cooperative faiths interpret it the same way. Finally, there is no distinguishing character in the Greek text to change God as referred to throughout the verse to “a god” as has been the liberty taken in the writing of the JW version. This is just one example of distorting the truth to support a false ideal. What was that you mentioned about those distorting the word of God being Judged?

John CH1;
Ancient Greek
1Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ** **** θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.**
Latin Vulgate; 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NAB 1 1 2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JW 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

what in the original greek or Latin text supports that distortion.?
 
Dan_Parker said:
Danno2281:
Let’s look more fully at the quote:"

but as truth expounds,the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered… the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’… showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him."

The Word that always exists, being His own mind and heart, was AT FIRST in Him.
The existing Word had not yet been uttered (a temporal expression used to express a non- temporal condition) as the creative force. Theophilus, far from separating the Word and the Father, adamantly professes their unity.
Indeed, the Logos being His own mind and heart, how could the Father (the archon) have wished or determined to create apart from the Logos?

Dan:
Yes, I get that part. At first, when the Word was in the Father but not yet begotten as a person the Father was alone. I therefore asked the question that remains unanswered:

A modern day Catholic would NEVER say that the Father was alone, would they?
Click to expand...
Obviously you don’t “get that part.” There was nothing other than the Godhead (You keep misquoting and saying ‘Father" - Theophilus says "God’) alone, the Word being intimately united to the archon, before creation (again using a temporal expression to designate a philosophical rather than a real construct since creation was from the begining). There was no “before creation” since in the ‘mind’ of God all always was and will always be. Nothing comes into or is removed from His knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top