Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν,

[The Real John Milton]

This is where the notion that Jesus is God is rejected by the apostle. It must be pointed out from the onset that no one needs to prove a negative, so for example, it's not my job (or else the writer of the gospel of John's Job ) to prove that, say, apostle Peter is not God. But the Gospel of John here does precisely just that sort of thing; it proves a negative ( specifically, that Jesus is not God). And it's not the only place in the GNT either where a negative on this score is proved.

"And the Word became a human being and dwelt among us,.."

Well, if the Word "became" a human being, then it was either never God to begin with or else it was no longer God after it became a human being. Either way, the biblical Jesus who walked the earth was not God .

 

[The Real John Milton]

I think Trinitarians should look at the issue from the Unitarian's perspective, for a change, to realize how illogical (and if I may humbly say, insane) their position is.

In this regard, suppose the tables were turned and I argued that each of the men in John 10:34 were God Almighty because the bible called each of them "god" (θεός, the same Greek word the bible uses to say the Word in John 1:1c is "god.").

ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι Ἐγὼ εἶπα Θεοί ἐστε;

How would you go about explaining to me that such a man whom the bible calls "god" is not in fact "God" (with a big "G," i.e. the Creator himself) ? What would be your first line of argument ?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I think Trinitarians should look at the issue from the Unitarian's perspective, for a change, to realize how illogical (and if I may humbly say, insane) their position is.

In this regard, suppose the tables were turned and I argued that each of the men in John 10:34 were God Almighty because the bible called each of them "god."



How would you go about explaining to me that such a man whom the bible calls "god" is not in fact "God" (with a big "G," the creator himself) ? What would be your first line of argument ?

They shoot themselves in the foot by rendering it "God" there in my opinion.

Even the Lutheran BDAG says to see that passage for the perspective of "a uniquely begotten deity."

 

[The Real John Milton]

They shoot themselves in the foot by rendering it "God" there in my opinion.

Even the Lutheran BDAG says to see that passage for the perspective of "a uniquely begotten deity."

Interesting. Probably to go with the apparent μονογενὴς θεὸς reading at John 1:18.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Your flaw is to assume that "became" means exactly the same thing as the meaning you are imputing to γίνομαι. You might want to rethink that. Maybe.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Your flaw is to assume that "became" means exactly the same thing as the meaning you are imputing to γίνομαι. You might want to rethink that. Maybe.

One example in BDAG is οἱ λίθοι ἄρτοι γίνονται the stones turn into loaves Mt 4:3.

it's in the same section as 1:4. Do you infer that there is a biblical parallel to a divine being adding human nature with γίνομαι?

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Matt 4:3 is not parallel, though it uses similar language. This is where not just the language, but your bugbear context comes into play. There is no parallel to the incarnation, but Scripture is clear that Jesus is both God and man, despite the sometimes almost valiant protests by unitarians of various stripes.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Matt 4:3 is not parallel, though it uses similar language. This is where not just the language, but your bugbear context comes into play. There is no parallel to the incarnation, but Scripture is clear that Jesus is both God and man, despite the sometimes almost valiant protests by unitarians of various stripes.

I will agree that he was θεος and was a human being as well. I just see no bible writer teach in context that he was both at the same time.

If it's "clear" to you, maybe you could clarify for me.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Your flaw is to assume that "became" means exactly the same thing as the meaning you are imputing to γίνομαι. You might want to rethink that. Maybe.

Ok. So what else could γίνομαι mean in John 1:14 other than it’s standard , biblical definition, as used elsewhere in verses like John 2:9? Don’t just tease a position, but offer an actual alternative with biblical precedent.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Matt 4:3 is not parallel, though it uses similar language. This is where not just the language, but your bugbear context comes into play. There is no parallel to the incarnation, but Scripture is clear that Jesus is both God and man, despite the sometimes almost valiant protests by unitarians of various stripes.

That’s your theology talking rather than your rational brain.

 

[The Real John Milton]

One example in BDAG is οἱ λίθοι ἄρτοι γίνονται the stones turn into loaves Mt 4:3.

it's in the same section as 1:4. Do you infer that there is a biblical parallel to a divine being adding human nature with γίνομαι?

Nice one, John 2:9 is another. I would like Gryllus to give us a verse with the word γίνομαι in it from the Gospels the definition of which corresponds to his special definition of γίνομαι at John 1:14.

I would be very surprised if he does so.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Nice one, John 2:9 is another. I would like Gryllus to give us a verse with the word γίνομαι in it from the Gospels the definition of which corresponds to his special definition of γίνομαι at John 1:14.

I would be very surprised if he does so.

Here is another, Ex 7:12:

(LXX-APP-Parsed) 12 καὶ ἔρριψαν ἕκαστος τὴν ῥάβδον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐγένοντο δράκοντες· καὶ κατέπιεν ἡ ῥάβδος ἡ Ααρων τὰς ἐκείνων ῥάβδους. †

 

[The Real John Milton]

Here is another, Ex 7:12:

(LXX-APP-Parsed) 12 καὶ ἔρριψαν ἕκαστος τὴν ῥάβδον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐγένοντο δράκοντες· καὶ κατέπιεν ἡ ῥάβδος ἡ Ααρων τὰς ἐκείνων ῥάβδους. †

Yep, very good!...Biblical words must be given biblical definitions, that is, definitions which have biblical precedent. To say that there is "no parallel to the doctrine of the incarnation in Scripture" is bad enough, but to go one step further and not even be able to provide a biblical definition of a biblical word in John 1:14 (namely of γίνομαι) , stretches credulity beyond the breaking point. Trinitarian doctrine consists of unbiblical myths and fables; it has to be concluded thus unfortunately.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Mark 9:3 is another good definition of ἐγένετο for John 1:14 --

καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο στίλβοντα λευκὰ λίαν, οἷα γναφεὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὐ δύναται οὕτως λευκᾶναι.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Mark 9:3 is another good definition of ἐγένετο for John 1:14 --

No. The garments remain garments. Their appearance changes, not what they are.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

No. The garments remain garments. Their appearance changes, not what they are.

BDAG distinguishes between γίνομαι taking a noun as opposed to an adjective. Mark 9:3 seems adjectival.

 

[The Real John Milton]

No. The garments remain garments. Their appearance changes, not what they are.

Gryllus, γίνομαι denotes a change in the color of the garments. The point is that here again γίνομαι denotes a change in state from X to Y; the garments no longer were the same color after they became white,

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Gryllus, γίνομαι denotes a change in the color of the garments. The point is that here again γίνομαι denotes a change in state from X to Y; the garments no longer were the same color after they became white,

I think you can use this to illustrate how J 1:14 should be viewed if the divine Word appeared to be human. That's probably not Unitarian or Trinitarian.

I think @Gryllus Maior has a point here. If a green plant was in a heat wave and became brown it is still the same plant even though the color changed.

I really don't think a parallel exists where γίνομαι is used to indicate the addition of something while retaining the original when the predicate nominative is a noun.

But I can see it with a adjective.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

If we suspend our rational and grammatical mind and take σὰρξ as an adjective (in order to salvage our doctrine), then the verse would still be saying that something about the Logos changed. I'm not sure Trinitarian doctrine allows for any change in the Logos itself, since Logos is supposed to be 100% who and what it was even after the so-called "Incarnation." The "appearance of" God (i.e. of the Logos) changed? God no longer looked like what he was prior to the "Incarnation" ?

But more troubling is the fact that such an understanding (taking σὰρξ as an adjective) denies that Jesus became a human being, (only that his appearance changed). This is the Spirit of anti-Christ which the apostle warned about:

ὅτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.

2 John 1:7

This verse clearly is an allusion to John 1:14 and all those who abuse it, where the apostle says that the Logos (not it's color or it's appearance) became a human being.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I think you can use this to illustrate how J 1:14 should be viewed if the divine Word appeared to be human. That's probably not Unitarian or Trinitarian.

I think @Gryllus Maior has a point here. If a green plant was in a heat wave and became brown it is still the same plant even though the color changed.

I really don't think a parallel exists where γίνομαι is used to indicate the addition of something while retaining the original when the predicate nominative is a noun.

But I can see it with a adjective.

Red above is quite true, ..... and you must have been reading my mind on this score, as this post steals the thunder of my last post.