John 1:1

[Danno2281]

Thank you for your explanation. As I said, I did not expect to get the terminology exactly the way you would explain it. However you have confirmed that your view of the begetting of the Word is eternal because time did not exist. That is what I meant when said that your view of the Son being eternal even though he is said to be created/begotten was dependent upon a particular view of time.

That being said, note the way the NAB expresses this time:
NAB Titus 1:2 in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before time began,

So, why is it that I cannot say “before time” but the Catholic NAB can say “before time began”? (cp NJB 2 Timothy 1:9 … before the beginning of time)

Goodspeed has “promised ages ago”, Douai has “before the times of the world”, Confraternity has “before the ages began”. Dan, you can say whateve you like, but translating is a tough job. Suppose you had to translate the English expression “from time immemorIal” meaning since before anyone’s ability to remember, and to try to stay true to the word structure. That’s what we have here. Pro chronon ainion, for all its simplicity, can carry varied meanings, and context does not always permit only one correct rendering, as you have surely noted time and again. All I was trying to do was to bring as much clarity as I can to a subject on which I confess great ignorance - time, and the clarity is trying to find words that express what experience has taught, not to advance a theory, not to subscribe to any theory (Parmenides vs Heraclitus?), and not to ascribe any theory to scripture. My faith seeks understanding, and that is what these forums are about. If we learn anything, that’s great, but if we love in the learning both those from whom we learn and who learn from us, that is far better. And you, Dan are very loved.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan:
NAB Revelation 21:6 He said to me, "They are accomplished. I (am) the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. 7 The victor will inherit these gifts, and **I shall be his God, and he will be my **son.

You never addressed my point that Christians are brothers of Christ and sons of God. They are sons of the A&W here and therefore the A&W here is the Father.

Danno2281
You seem to have missed that in post #538. I realize that we are on two separate issues, and that you are also addressing other posters, and it’s easier to glean a post rather than to look carefully, so I’ll point out again that Jesus uses that image of a father in Jn.14:18, and in fact addresses them as “Little children” in 13:33. Remember that “All that the Father has is Mine.”

Dan:
John says of his students, TEKNIA MOU (my children) and if Jesus said that you might have a position, particularly if it was found in the context of Revelation 21. However he does not. If Jesus meant that the Father giving him all things meant relationships as well, then would there ever be a reason for Christians to be considered brothers of Christ yet sons of God?

In the context of Revelation 21, there is no doubt that the A&W is the Father who is God and Father to Christians.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Goodspeed has “promised ages ago”, Douai has “before the times of the world”, Confraternity has “before the ages began”. Dan, you can say whateve you like, but translating is a tough job. Suppose you had to translate the English expression “from time immemorIal” meaning since before anyone’s ability to remember, and to try to stay true to the word structure. That’s what we have here. Pro chronon ainion, for all its simplicity, can carry varied meanings, and context does not always permit only one correct rendering, as you have surely noted time and again. All I was trying to do was to bring as much clarity as I can to a subject on which I confess great ignorance - time, and the clarity is trying to find words that express what experience has taught, not to advance a theory, not to subscribe to any theory (Parmenides vs Heraclitus?), and not to ascribe any theory to scripture. My faith seeks understanding, and that is what these forums are about. If we learn anything, that’s great, but if we love in the learning both those from whom we learn and who learn from us, that is far better. And you, Dan are very loved.

I have always learned much from those who disagree with me, and at times more sp than from those who hold my views. I appreciate being loved, but I appreciate more that you may understand that my view is based upon a very solid Scriptural foundation.

 

[jlhargus]

There is a “Catholic” view on very few passages of scripture, if by that you mean an “official” view, i.e. one that has been defined. Views contrary to the unanimous opinions of the Fathers are judged erroneous. Only a fool would deny that this is the first example of Wisdom as craftsmanship, for no example could precede it. My objection is to the implication that before this (whatever that could possibly mean in terms of God’s timelessness) Wisdom did not exist, as if the Creator did not exist until He created. You might well say that “before” He created He was not a creator per se, but to say that He did not yet exist is a very different statement. I hope this helps to make my position more understandable

I haven’t been following the line as I have been away, but I hope you might find the following links of some interest.

Proverbs 8:22: “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way. . . .” (New World Translation, i.e., the Watchtower’s translation of the Bible [hereafter NWT]). JW theological starting point: God is unitarian (i.e., one Person, Jehovah) thus Jesus is not God, but created.

RESPONSE: 1. The word that the NWT translates as “produced” (“possessed” NASB) is from the Hebrew word, quanah, which normally carries the meaning of “to get,” “acquire,” or “buy” (e.g., Prov. 1:5; 4:5, 7). We do not find one instance where Solomon uses the term to denote a creative idea.

1. Concurring with this meaning, the NWT translates archē in Luke 20:20 as “governments.” See also Ephesians 6:12 where archē is translated by the NWT as “governments.”
2. Note that in Revelation 22:13, Jehovah, whom JWs believe is eternal, is called archē.

christiandefense.org/index.html#triniy_early church

kerux.com/documents/KeruxV3N1A3.asp PROVERBS 8:22-37 WISDOM

 

[Danno2281]

Dan_Parker:
You never addressed my point that Christians are brothers of Christ and sons of God. They are sons of the A&W here and therefore the A&W here is the Father.

So in your view, Paul was certainly wrong in calling Titus, Timothy, etc. his sons instead of his brothers. Dan, what was said just before this? “I shall be their God” as in “My Lord, and my God.” (Jn.20:28). If you could see that Jesus and the Father are One in being, this problem is resolved, but if they are not, how do you explain the defining reference to living water? Who is it Who supplies that living water (Jn.7:37-38). It is He Who Is (Jn.8:58), the A&W! Who sees Him sees the Father.

 

[catholic1seeks]

my view is based upon a very solid Scriptural foundation.

And this is what everyone believes

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan:
You never addressed my point that Christians are brothers of Christ and sons of God. They are sons of the A&W here and therefore the A&W here is the Father.
**
Danno2281**
So in your view, Paul was certainly wrong in calling Titus, Timothy, etc. his sons instead of his brothers.

Dan:
No, in my view you are misapplying the text. Paul was calling some his sons because he taught them. They were therefore sons of Paul, in a sense. Now lets look at your verse again:

NAB Revelation 21:6 He said to me, "They are accomplished. (1 )I (am) the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. 7 The victor (1 )will inherit these gifts, and** I shall be his God, and he will be my son.**

The ones who are sons are sons of God. Does that phrase register with a Catholic? Who are sons of God? They are Christ’s brothers. Now lets look at the NAB notes. Your point was that leading to springs of water meant that the A&W was the Son. However the NAB notes disagree with you. They footnote Rev 7:17 on that verse. Lets look at it along with the note for that verse.

NAB Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb who is in the center of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to springs of life-giving water, (1 )and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." NAB Notes (Rev 7:17) <1> Life-giving water: literally, “the water of life,” God’s grace, which flows from Christ; cf Rev 21:6; 22:1,17; John 4:10,14.

Rev 21:6 is cross-referenced in the NAB with a note that indicates that the water of life is God’s grace which flows from Christ. Therefore the Father is the source and the Christ is his instrument. That is a far cry from identifying the A&W as being Christ himself. The NAB does not agree with you. If they did, then Catholics would be modalist which is the teaching that the Father IS the Son.

Danno2281
Dan, what was said just before this? “I shall be their God” as in “My Lord, and my God.” (Jn.20:28). If you could see that Jesus and the Father are One in being, this problem is resolved, but if they are not, how do you explain the defining reference to living water? Who is it Who supplies that living water (Jn.7:37-38). It is He Who Is (Jn.8:58), the A&W! Who sees Him sees the Father.

Dan:
I have already explained how the NAB teaches that the Father is the source and the Son is his instrument in giving this life. As for John 20:28, that verse is a complete discussion in and of itself. Saint Augustine taught that Thomas spoke of two persons in that verse, both Father and Son. Did you know that?

PS - The Cathechism also links 21:7 as a reference to the Father
The Our Father is the prayer of the “end time.” “Our” shows that we believe that God will say to the victor, “I will be his God and he shall be my son” (Rev 21:7). [2786-2788]

 

[Dan_Parker]

And this is what everyone believes

Actually that is not what I am finding. Time and time again Catholics appeal to what they teach on the subject when they cannot support this with one of the 66 inspired books.

 

[clmowry]

Actually that is not what I am finding. Time and time again Catholics appeal to what they teach on the subject when they cannot support this with one of the 66 inspired books.

To what do you appeal in order to declare that 1.) there are 66 inspired books. 2.) that anything must be proven from them?

Chuck

 

[Dan_Parker]

To what do you appeal in order to declare that 1.) there are 66 inspired books. 2.) that anything must be proven from them?

Chuck

I appeal to a combination of internal and external evidence and the belief that God would protect his inspired word and make sure that in spite of imperfect men, his books would be universally accepted by those who consider themselves Christian. Those books that are universally accepted by both Protestants and Catholics number 66. That is the short explanation. Much more could be said.

 

[teachccd]

Actually that is not what I am finding. Time and time again Catholics appeal to what they teach on the subject when they cannot support this with one of the 66 inspired books.

73 inspired books. Get your numbers right, Dan…

 

[teachccd]

I appeal to a combination of internal and external evidence and the belief that God would protect his inspired word and make sure that in spite of imperfect men, his books would be universally accepted by those who consider themselves Christian. Those books that are universally accepted by both Protestants and Catholics number 66. That is the short explanation. Much more could be said.

We’ll go round in circles. We’ll fly high like the birds up in the sky. Fly high…

Dan put me on ignore but for the rest of you who can see me rest assured that he cannot answer this question. He thinks that Scripture fell from the sky. He cannot appeal to the early Church for canonicity since the early Church believed in the Trinity, the Preal Presence and many other teachings the the JW’s do not claim. Re-read his response above. He never mentions who those “Christians” were who “universally” accepted the “66” books. Check his previous posts on this topic where he says that “this is the short explanation” and “much more could be said”. But he never says it.

This thread has been going on for some time now with over 500 posts and yet while all the posters debate Scripture verses with Dan, no one can get him to give us this answer. He quotes and seems to give scholarly advice about a bible that he cannot explain its origin. Dan goes to the ends of the earth with his “Greek” and “Hebrew” translations and yet he cannot answer one simple english question: Who acknowledged the inspired texts? It was the Catholic Church and there’s no getting around that. My prayers are with Dan that the scales fall from his eyes and that he may see…teachccd

 

[clmowry]

I appeal to a combination of internal and external evidence and the belief that God would protect his inspired word and make sure that in spite of imperfect men, his books would be universally accepted by those who consider themselves Christian. Those books that are universally accepted by both Protestants and Catholics number 66. That is the short explanation. Much more could be said.

So you take in on faith and don’t demand the same level of proof that you expect Catholics to present in order to support their faith?

Chuck

 

[Dan_Parker]

So you take in on faith and don’t demand the same level of proof that you expect Catholics to present in order to support their faith?

Chuck

I don’t understand your reaction. We have 66 books for which we both agree are inspired. I gave my reasons, and faith in God is only one of the reasons. Let me break this down further.

1. Faith in God. That God exists and that God communicates with people through the written word. That he will make sure that only his inspired books are accepted by people who claim to be Christian.
2. Internal evidence in the inspired books.
3. External evidence about the inspired books.

Even point #1 is not based on what is called “blind” faith, but it comes the closest to your comment on faith.

 

[clmowry]

I don’t understand your reaction. We have 66 books for which we both agree are inspired. I gave my reasons, and faith in God is only one of the reasons. Let me break this down further.

1. Faith in God. That God exists and that God communicates with people through the written word. That he will make sure that only his inspired books are accepted by people who claim to be Christian.

This is simply a restatement of what you believe. Why you believe “that God communicates with people through the written word”, was the question at hand.

And of course, God apparently has not made sure that only his inspired books are accepted by people who claim to be Christian, since people who claim to be Christian have different opinions on what constitutes His inspired books.

1. Internal evidence in the inspired books.

Since the books being inspired depends upon your initial presumption, your foundation is still the initial presumption. No?

1. External evidence about the inspired books.

And again, that would be the question, what “external evidence” so far I only have “I believe” as the external evidence that has been presented.

Even point #1 is not based on what is called “blind” faith, but it comes the closest to your comment on faith.

I don’t think I said “blind” faith, but barring any other presentation of why you believe what you believe about the nature of scripture, I guess “blind” faith is fair.

In any case, not the subject at hand. My apologies for hi-jacking the thread.

Chuck

 

[Dan_Parker]

clmowry:

This is simply a restatement of what you believe. Why you believe “that God communicates with people through the written word”, was the question at hand.

Dan:
God started communicating to man when he was created. Man started writing books about this right from the beginning. At first God’s people were the Jews. I accept the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures and see how even though there were extra books written, that God made sure that those books were not considered inspired by the Jews. The transmission of the written word and the preservation of it started way before the 2nd - 3rd century when your so-called Fathers started to argue over which books were inspired. Jerome listed those inspired books in The Books of Samuel and Kings. If your theory is that the apostles told their students which books were inspired and that this verbal tradition was handed down to your Popes, then why did Jerome list just the books from the Hebrew that Protestants claim are inspired and not the Catholic additions?

And of course, God apparently has not made sure that only his inspired books are accepted by people who claim to be Christian, since people who claim to be Christian have different opinions on what constitutes His inspired books.

Dan:
I made a distinction between Catholics and Protestants that you have not engaged. Can you show me a major Protestant denomination that considers the apocrypha to be inspired? I am not aware of any.

Since the books being inspired depends upon your initial presumption, your foundation is still the initial presumption. No?

Dan:
I start from the Jews. They precede the so-called Church Fathers.

And again, that would be the question, what “external evidence” so far I only have “I believe” as the external evidence that has been presented.

Dan:
I presented Jerome, for one, who oddly enough, disagrees with you.

I don’t think I said “blind” faith, but barring any other presentation of why you believe what you believe about the nature of scripture, I guess “blind” faith is fair.

Dan:
I have not presented all my evidence, but as you note, this is off-topic. However I would like to see you address Jerome.

In any case, not the subject at hand. My apologies for hi-jacking the thread.

Chuck

Dan:
Not a problem. How about Jerome? In writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter he said:
Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt.

 

[clmowry]

So the two external reasons I have so far for what you believe are:

Scripture is inspired because the Jews believed it to be so.
You base which books are inspired on what the Jews / St. Jerome believed.

Correct?

Why do you accept either of these as an authority? Do you accept all of what they teach?

Chuck

clmowry:

This is simply a restatement of what you believe. Why you believe “that God communicates with people through the written word”, was the question at hand.

Dan:
God started communicating to man when he was created. Man started writing books about this right from the beginning. At first God’s people were the Jews. I accept the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures and see how even though there were extra books written, that God made sure that those books were not considered inspired by the Jews. The transmission of the written word and the preservation of it started way before the 2nd - 3rd century when your so-called Fathers started to argue over which books were inspired. Jerome listed those inspired books in The Books of Samuel and Kings. If your theory is that the apostles told their students which books were inspired and that this verbal tradition was handed down to your Popes, then why did Jerome list just the books from the Hebrew that Protestants claim are inspired and not the Catholic additions?

And of course, God apparently has not made sure that only his inspired books are accepted by people who claim to be Christian, since people who claim to be Christian have different opinions on what constitutes His inspired books.

Dan:
I made a distinction between Catholics and Protestants that you have not engaged. Can you show me a major Protestant denomination that considers the apocrypha to be inspired? I am not aware of any.

Since the books being inspired depends upon your initial presumption, your foundation is still the initial presumption. No?

Dan:
I start from the Jews. They precede the so-called Church Fathers.

And again, that would be the question, what “external evidence” so far I only have “I believe” as the external evidence that has been presented.

Dan:
I presented Jerome, for one, who oddly enough, disagrees with you.

I don’t think I said “blind” faith, but barring any other presentation of why you believe what you believe about the nature of scripture, I guess “blind” faith is fair.

Dan:
I have not presented all my evidence, but as you note, this is off-topic. However I would like to see you address Jerome.

In any case, not the subject at hand. My apologies for hi-jacking the thread.

Chuck

Dan:
Not a problem. How about Jerome? In writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter he said:

Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt.

 

[Dan_Parker]

So the two external reasons I have so far for what you believe are:

Scripture is inspired because the Jews believed it to be so.
You base which books are inspired on what the Jews / St. Jerome believed.

Correct?

Why do you accept either of these as an authority? Do you accept all of what they teach?

Chuck

Not exactly. I base my belief that God communicated with man on our most ancient history and note that the Jews accepted which books were inspired far before the 1st century.

I bring up Jerome because he rejects your additional books and thus refutes the notion that the books which are inspired were handed down to the Catholic church who accepts more books than Jerome.

In addition there is external and internal evidence that we have not discussed. However those two points are sufficient at this time.

I am most interested in your view of Jerome and how this evidence can be rationalized with your view.

 

[clmowry]

I am most interested in your view of Jerome and how this evidence can be rationalized with your view.

I’m not really interested in the change of subject, and you won’t really be interested in my answer anyway. (i.e. Your presupposition that I think the cannon of scripture was, or needed to be, handed down orally from the apostles is not correct.)

So since neither of us wants to discuss what the other one wants to discuss, please proceed with your regularly scheduled thread.



Chuck

 

[Dan_Parker]

I’m not really interested in the change of subject, and you won’t really be interested in my answer anyway. (i.e. Your presupposition that I think the cannon of scripture was, or needed to be, handed down orally from the apostles is not correct.)

So since neither of us wants to discuss what the other one wants to discuss, please proceed with your regularly scheduled thread.



Chuck

These Jerome quotes are very effective. No matter whether the transmission was oral from the apostles or oral from those closely associated with them or otherwise seems to come to a dead stop at Jerome.