That doesn’t mean anything without an understanding of the essential Trinitarian doctrine of anhypostasis. You don’t seem to be aware that the Trinitarian Jesus is not a human being. We will continue this discussion if/when you understand that.Jesus was and is BOTh fully God and Human!
Was the pre-flesh Logos a literally existing , intelligent & conscious being ? It’s a simple one word yes or no question.It's your imagination that I believe such things. For a start, I have always made clear that I do not see the Logos as "the person who is God" - this is not what John 1:1c says. Neither does the resurrected Jesus command the title "God" - he is appointed to sit at God's right hand. So again nothing you have supposed is justified in respect of "me." You seem to be talking at cross purposes all the time, confusing me with conventional hyper-Trinitarians. You need to start discriminating more.
The Logos is eternal, but is not of itself the Father who is God. That much you should accept.
I feel you've packed a lot of subtle emphasis and meaning into the word "being" which in terms of English grammar is hardly a biblical word when applied to spiritual entities. So in Rev 4:11 "being" is applied to created entities ("You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”)Was the pre-flesh Logos a literally existing , intelligent & conscious being ? It’s a simple one word yes or no question.
11 Ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν, ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν.I feel you've packed a lot of subtle emphasis and meaning into the word "being" which in terms of English grammar is hardly a biblical word when applied to spiritual entities. So in Rev 4:11 "being" is applied to created entities ("You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”)
Caragounis is a bit of a nut when it comes to Greek pronunciation over the ages, but his take on the meaning of various texts is often spot on. Thanks for sharing this. You say he informs you but I assume this is from a text and not a personal email? If so what text?Jn 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος
I am informed by Chrys C. Caragounis that Ἐν ἀρχῇ is effectively definite: i.e. no other beginnings. He says:
-------------
The anarthrous expression έν άρχη occurs no fewer than 4,178 times in
Greek literature from Homeros down to XVI A.D. The expression occurs
in basically two main semantic fields: (l.a) "beginning" in a temporal
sense, (l.b) "beginning" in a local sense and (2) in the sense of "power",
"command", "authority", "jurisdiction", "reign", "office", etc. The sense of
"in the beginning of' occurs in connection with a great variety of words.
On the other hand, the arthrous expression έν τη άρχη occurs in the
same body of literature 376 times. Of these, about 56 occurrences have
the sense of "power", "office", "jurisdiction", "authority", "reign", "dominions",
etc., while 320 instances have the general sense of "beginning",
"first", etc. Comparing the 376 instances of the arthrous with the 4,178
instances of the anarthrous expression, we are forced to conclude that the
Greeks had a predilection for using the anarthrous expression.
The question that arises is whether there is a semantic difference between
the two expressions:
• Aprioristically it would be rather strange if in Greek literature 4,178
contexts demanded the indefinite form and only 376 contexts demanded
the definite form. The sheer force of these figures—aprioristically
again—make it very difficult to argue that by the anarthrous form
indefinite meaning was intended while by the arthrous definite.
• Comparing the anarthrous with the arthrous occurrences it is difficult
to maintain such a distinction. For example, Platon, Symposion, 197b:
ωσπερ έν άρχη είπον functions in exactly the same way as Origenes,
Comm. on Jeremiah 17,4.46: έν τή άρχή ό προοφήτης έλεγεν (see also
14.5.38: έν τη άρχη έπεσημειωσάμην). And again, Platon, Phaidros,
253c: καθάπερ έν άρχη τοϋδε τοϋ μύθου is similar to Origenes, Frg.
on Psalms, 2 p. 2: έν τη άρχη τοϋ μακαρισμοϋ. Compare, further,
Platon, Alkibiades, 140d: έν τη άρχή τοϋ λόγου, Gorgias, Frg. 11,130:
έν άρχη τοϋ λόγου and Hyperides, Frg. 171,2: έν άρχή τοϋ λόγου
with Ailios Herodianos, Peri Syntaxeos ton stoicheion, 3,2, 393,38:
έν τή άρχή της λέξεως. These specimens seem to indicate that the
anarthtrous instances could have been arthrous and vice versa.
• Nor would it be possible to argue that the one expression was more at
home in the classical period while the other in the Hellenistic or Byzantine
periods. For as a matter of fact, both expressions show about
the same ratio of occurrences between their classical and post-classical
instances, that is, both expressions occur in analogous proportion
more frequently in the latter periods.
• Although our NT editions do not indicate this, some of the early
Christian authors actually use the arthrous expression at John 1,1,
e.g. Origenes, Fig. on Gospel of John, 1,49: διό έπήγαγεν τφ Έν τή
άρχή ήν ό λόγος; Didymos Caecus, On the Trinity, e.g. 39,793.35:
Ήν γαρ, φησίν, έν τή άρχή Θεός προς τόν Θεόν; Gregorios Nysseus,
Refutation of Eunomos, 22,3' έν τή άρχή όντι λόγω (ειπε γαρ ότι Και
ήν πρός τόν Θεόν). That these are not all exact quotations of Jn 1,1
is beside the point. The important thing is that for these authors the
anarthrous expression and the arthrous expression were equivalent.
• There is no doubt whatsoever that Jn 1,1 is a conscious echo of LXX
Gen 1,1: Έν άρχη έποίησεν ό θεός τον οΰρανόν και την γήν, in spite
of the fact that while άρχη in Genesis refers to the beginning of creation,
in John it refers to a state that already existed in the beginning. In
other words, the difference between Gen 1,1 and Jn 1,1 is that whereas
the former passage refers to the beginning of created things, the latter
goes further back, referring to eternity. But at all events, the use of the
anarthrous expression at Jn 1,1 was given.
• The expression έν άρχή is found in the LXX 29 times, translating
various Hebrew words/expressions. Almost all of them could have
used the arthrous expression έν τή άρχή without any change of meaning.
And yet the arthrous expression occurs only once, namely in
the Theodotion text of Dan 9,12: δν εΐδον... έν τή άρχή (the LXX has
δν ειδον... την άρχήν), where the expression could easily have been
anarthrous: έν άρχή.
• In the NT έν άρχή occurs only four times. Leaving aside the two
Johannineoccurrences, both Acts 11,15 and Phil 4,15 could have been
served by the arthrous expression έν τή άρχή. To make a distinction
here between έν άρχή, as referring to the first days of the Gospel in
Makedonia and a hypothetical έν τή άρχή, as referring to the first
beginnings in Jerusalem, is a hypothesis that is foreign to the genius
and the evidence of the language.
• The anarthrous expression έν άρχή should not be understood as the
indefinite would in English, i.e. "in a beginning", since that would be
nonsense. The terms 'definite' and 'indefinite', if used at all in connection
with this expression, should be understood in an analogous
way to the two conjunctions οτε and δταν, which, although strictly
distinguished, in later Greek including the NT, have come to be used
interchangeably, while in Demotic Neohellenic in which this development
continued, the less phonodynamic οτε has given place to δταν.
In English translation both of them are rendered by 'when'.
• In Demotic Neohellenic, which has lost the dative form, the preposition
έν is not usuable, except in certain set phrases. Jn 1,1a would
be rendered by στην (= εις την) άρχή(ν) ήταν ό λδγος. This means
that Demotic Neohellenic translates έν άρχή with a definite phrase,
precisely as English, German, French, Swedish, Dutch, Spanish, Italian,
etc. It is impossible o use the indefinite έν άρχη in Demotic
Neohellenic. But a Greek under stands both έν άρχη and στην άρχη(ν)
in this context as saying the same thing.
• Finally, έν άρχη as such is indefinite. However, its close relation to a
noun or a verb, of which noun or verb (action) it is the beginning,
lends to it a certain definiteness. Thus, the absolute έν άρχη (in Jn
1,1), referring, as it does, to the state that existed before the beginning
of creation (Gen 1,1), can never be understood merely of "a beginning"
(as though there were many beginnings) but "of the beginning". It may
be said that the phrase has almost crystallized into a set formula or
even that it has acquired a kind of adverbial force.
ἐκτίσθησαν in Rev. 4:11 does not mean “being” but “were created.”I feel you've packed a lot of subtle emphasis and meaning into the word "being" which in terms of English grammar is hardly a biblical word when applied to spiritual entities. So in Rev 4:11 "being" is applied to created entities ("You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”)
In the Greek εἰμί is obviously very much associated with God and Jesus in the OT and the NT πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί etc.
So in the wider sense of "being" (so as to included what isn't created), the answer is clearly "Yes" from Jn 1:1b, and from Jesus' own statements as in Jhn 8:58 etc, and about having the glory of the Father before the world was, which could only be connected with a spiritual being, rather than what is viewed only as an abstract human concept.
Thus "wisdom" isn't ordinarily seen to attract glory except by way of imputing it to the possessor of itself (i.e. to the possessor of wisdom). Wisdom can come in many forms and may be largely carnal in nature (worldly-wise) as Jesus himself conceded, Luke 16:8.
Howeverwhat may appear to unenlightened humans as mere abstractions may connote living heavenly spiritual realities when assessed in their correct form:
Heb 4:12 "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it pierces even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
His exposition on Jn 1:1 "A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1" with Jan Van der WATTCaragounis is a bit of a nut when it comes to Greek pronunciation over the ages, but his take on the meaning of various texts is often spot on. Thanks for sharing this. You say he informs you but I assume this is from a text and not a personal email? If so what text?
You've selected the wrong Greek word. It is ἦσαν (they existed) that is translated as "have their being" in some Eng. translations, so I reject your criticisms.ἐκτίσθησαν in Rev. 4:11 does not mean “being” but “were created.”
Have you stopped beating your wife? Just another trick question.You also don’t seem to know the definitions of simple English words. “Being” in English means “the state of having life or existence.”
Did the pre-flesh Logos literally exist, did “he” have life, a consciousness, intelligence, a mind , etc ? Yes or No. Simple question.
Yes, I conceded that what I quoted was an NIV paraphrase, but I specifically searched for a translational example of "being" as an English common noun in the bible, rather than as a verb, without reference to the Greek, which I guess is going to be uncommon in the Greek as I don't believe it has direct a Greek equivalent. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) ὑπόστασις would be an approximation. I discovered only a reference to something created: God is seldom described as a "being." This really is the point: all TRJM's arguments are focused on the invalidity of the prior existence of the Logos as something created, rather than on something uncreated and eternally existing as Spirit.11 Ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν, ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν.
CJAB, just noting that even as a Trinitarian with some fairly serious disagreements I sometimes find your theological insights stimulating and intriguing. Here, I just want to note that the translation is somewhat misleading, at least to me. I would render "they came into existence and were created." My point is that it certainly doesn't have the technical implications that τὸ ὤν (and related terminology) pick up in later theological development.
Would be like God the father is the Ceo, both Him and Jesus are equally God!I disagree. God is spirit, not "stuff." Spirit is hierarchical. God is at the very top, the source of all power, and cannot be displaced, even by one in the form of God (i.e. the Logos). The arthrous theos in Jn 1:1b, and anarthrous theos in Jn 1:1c make this clear, as do the numerous references by Paul to God being over Christ.
He is fully God and Human!That doesn’t mean anything without an understanding of the essential Trinitarian doctrine of anhypostasis. You don’t seem to be aware that the Trinitarian Jesus is not a human being. We will continue this discussion if/when you understand that.
They are unequally God, as God is over Christ.Would be like God the father is the Ceo, both Him and Jesus are equally God!
(1) ἦσαν means “they were,” not “they existed.”(1)You've selected the wrong Greek word. It is ἦσαν (they existed) that is translated as "have their being" in some Eng. translations, so I reject your criticisms.
(2)Have you stopped beating your wife? Just another trick question.
You are really asking, "Did the Logos have anthropomorphic attributes before Jesus existed"? Of course not as the Logos is Spirit, just as God is Spirit. Whatever exists in the Spirit world that corresponds to these things is what the Logos had. Since God is invisible, the Logos is also invisible and in the form of God. So an entirely unreasonable question in any event; but the OT discloses that God is able to anthropomophize in order to relate to humanity in an intelligible way; so also the Logos who is God's instrument to communicate himself.
That’s as nutty as Trinitarianism.They are unequally God, as God is over Christ.
The Spirit is the source of life. How is it valid to ask whether the source of life is itself alive? Consider the verse I quoted earlier:(1) ἦσαν means “they were,” not “they existed.”
(2) It’s a simple question. Was the Logos alive before becoming a human being? How is that a trick question ?
As nutty (or as profound) as constrasting John 1:1b with John 1:1c, or as constrasting ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev 19:3) with ὁ θεος.That’s as nutty as Trinitarianism.
Not in the sense of being big God to little god, as both equally Yahweh!They are unequally God, as God is over Christ.
Theology. <sigh> In more formal terms, this is the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity.Not in the sense of being big God to little god, as both equally Yahweh!
Are you alive ? Is God alive ? Was the Logos alive before it became a human ? Ofcourse it is a valid question to ask. I need to see some substance from you.The Spirit is the source of life. How is it valid to ask whether the source of life is itself alive? Consider the verse I quoted earlier:
John 6:63 τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦν, ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν· τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν.
ζῳοποιέω means "to make alive"
ζωή means "life"
The words are (or perhaps convey) Spirit and Life. It is the Spirit that makes alive.
So how can you even ask about the Logos' anthropomorphic attributes?
This is nonsense, more like.Theology. <sigh> In more formal terms, this is the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity.