RGacky3
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 8, 2012
- Messages
- 9,570
- Reaction score
- 1,493
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word (literal translation).
Now Lets say we agree the word applies to Jesus, or at least some form of Jesus pre-existing, (be it personal or not).
What is God?
If we ignore the use of the article in the first instance of God and the lack of one in the second, and we claim that the first instance of God is the same as the second, and they are both identifying and entity.
What are they identifying?
Is it God the trinity? was Jesus with the trinity? Was Jesus the trinity? Both are Heresies.
Is God the Son? Was Jesus with the son?
Is God the father? was Jesus the father?
It simply doesn't work.
So we have 2 options, either we claim that the first instance of "God" means the father and the second instance means the son, in which case we have 2 Gods ... we have henotheism, great, we are Arians.
Or we say that the second instance of "God" lacking the article is NOT identifying the word, but describing the word ... in which case the word is "Godlike" or "divine" ... great, again we have Arianism.
But the fact is the article in front of the first "god" and the lack of one in front of the second "god" IS significant, very significant, it's the ONLY place in the whole bible where that happens.
John wasn't writing in a vacume, he knew about Proverbs 8, the Song of Solomon, Sirach, he knew about Philo's "logos" theology. He knew about the concept of the "logos" in philo, or "wisdom" in proverbs, Song of solomon and Sirach, being a created entity through which God created everything, and which was with God from the begining .... and in THAT context John 1:1 makes sense .... the only context it makes NO sense is a trinitarian one.
(if you're a trinitarian and want to respond, don't copy and paste a link, and don't copy and paste from some apologetic website listing citied scriptures with no context ... actually DEAL with the issue I presented and the theology of John 1:1. Thank you.)
Now Lets say we agree the word applies to Jesus, or at least some form of Jesus pre-existing, (be it personal or not).
What is God?
If we ignore the use of the article in the first instance of God and the lack of one in the second, and we claim that the first instance of God is the same as the second, and they are both identifying and entity.
What are they identifying?
Is it God the trinity? was Jesus with the trinity? Was Jesus the trinity? Both are Heresies.
Is God the Son? Was Jesus with the son?
Is God the father? was Jesus the father?
It simply doesn't work.
So we have 2 options, either we claim that the first instance of "God" means the father and the second instance means the son, in which case we have 2 Gods ... we have henotheism, great, we are Arians.
Or we say that the second instance of "God" lacking the article is NOT identifying the word, but describing the word ... in which case the word is "Godlike" or "divine" ... great, again we have Arianism.
But the fact is the article in front of the first "god" and the lack of one in front of the second "god" IS significant, very significant, it's the ONLY place in the whole bible where that happens.
John wasn't writing in a vacume, he knew about Proverbs 8, the Song of Solomon, Sirach, he knew about Philo's "logos" theology. He knew about the concept of the "logos" in philo, or "wisdom" in proverbs, Song of solomon and Sirach, being a created entity through which God created everything, and which was with God from the begining .... and in THAT context John 1:1 makes sense .... the only context it makes NO sense is a trinitarian one.
(if you're a trinitarian and want to respond, don't copy and paste a link, and don't copy and paste from some apologetic website listing citied scriptures with no context ... actually DEAL with the issue I presented and the theology of John 1:1. Thank you.)