Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν,

[Roger Thornhill]

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:



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.

I meant I could see a change to the property of something like color with an adjective and not that we can consider "flesh" to be a adjective.

But now that you mention it that's how some incorrectly take θεος to be θείος at J 1:1c. And neither do we find σάρκινος at J 1:14.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I meant I could see a change to the property of something like color with an adjective and not that we can consider "flesh" to be a adjective.

But now that you mention it that's how some incorrectly take θεος to be θείος at J 1:1c. And neither do we find σάρκινος at J 1:14.

Yes, all good points. For Trinitarianism to have been true, the apostle would have had to have used a verb like ἐνδύω at John 1:14 and not γίνομαι. So the following would have been consistent with Trinitarianism:

Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σάρκα ἐνεδύσατο

That is why the so-called "big A" (though he was nicknamed "the Dwarf" on account of his quite short stature) rubbished John 1:14 as follows in his writings:

Discourse 3 Against the Arians

Μὴ τοίνυν ἐκ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων τις σκανδαλιζέσθω, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον γινωσκέτω, ὡς τὴν φύσιν αὐτὸς ὁ Λόγος ἀπαθής ἐστι, καὶ ὅμως
δι᾿ ἣν ἐνεδύσατο σάρκα, λέγεται περὶ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα, ἐπειδὴ τῆς μὲν σαρκὸς ἴδια ταῦτα, τοῦ δὲ Σωτῆρος ἴδιον αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα. Καὶ αὐτὸς μὲν ἀπαθὴς τὴν φύσιν, ὡς ἔστι, διαμένει, μὴ βλαπτόμενος ἀπὸ τούτων, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐξαφανίζων καὶ ἀπολλύων αὐτά· οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι, ὡς εἰς τὸν ἀπαθῆ μεταβάντων αὐτῶν τῶν παθῶν καὶ ἀπηλειμμένων, ἀπαθεῖς καὶ ἐλεύθεροι τούτων λοιπὸν καὶ αὐτοὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας γίγνονται, καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων, ‘καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἄρῃ· καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστι·’


Let no one then stumble at what belongs to man, but rather let a man know that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on , these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour. And while He Himself, being impassible in nature, remains as He is, not harmed by these affections, but rather obliterating and destroying them, men, their passions as if changed and abolished in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves also impassible and free from them for ever, as John taught, saying, 'And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin 1 John 3:5.'

Notice he changed γίνομαι to ἐνεδύσατο at John 1:14.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Yes, all good points. For Trinitarianism to have been true, the apostle would have had to have used a verb like ἐνδύω at John 1:14 and not γίνομαι. So the following would have been consistent with Trinitarianism:

Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σάρκα ἐνεδύσατο

That is why the so-called "big A" (though he was nicknamed "the Dwarf" on account of his quite short stature) rubbished John 1:14 as follows in his writings:

Discourse 3 Against the Arians


Notice he changed γίνομαι to ἐνεδύσατο at John 1:14.

Thanks I never knew that was in there. He had to use ἐνεδύσατο or else he might have been mistaken for an Arian.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Thanks I never knew that was in there. He had to use ἐνεδύσατο or else he might have been mistaken for an Arian.

And that’s not the only place either. He repeatedly says “the Word put on flesh” ( rather than “the Word became flesh”) in his writings. As though he was conditioning his followers to equate both statements . I call it “the big A’s big Lie.”

 

[Roger Thornhill]

And that’s not the only place either. He repeatedly says “the Word put on flesh” ( rather than “the Word became flesh”) in his writings. As though he was conditioning his followers to equate both statements . I call it “the big A’s big Lie.”

It's called the illusory truth effect.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Roger, I recall a rather desperate argument by someone a while back that Athanasian was simply “paraphrasing” John 1:14 by saying that the Word put on flesh.

But to “paraphrase” is to restate the meaning of a text or passage using other words. Yet what Athanasian does here is distort the meaning of John 1:14, not restate it.

Thoughts ?

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Roger, I recall a rather desperate argument by someone a while back that Athanasian was simply “paraphrasing” John 1:14 by saying that the Word put on flesh.

But to “paraphrase” is to restate the meaning of a text or passage using other words. Yet what Athanasian does here is distort the meaning of John 1:14, not restate it.

Thoughts ?

Athanasius accurately captures the meaning of John 1:14.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Athanasius accurately captures the meaning of John 1:14.

Explain why. Don’t just make blanket assertions.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I think too often Trinitarians blindly follow their “fathers” and “traditions” more than the plain testimony of Scripture. This is very dangerous. So if Athanasius says something, no matter how absurd, it must be true , … no explanation needed.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

I think too often Trinitarians blindly follow their “fathers” and “traditions” more than the plain testimony of Scripture. This is very dangerous. So if Athanasius says something, no matter how absurd, it must be true , … no explanation needed.

We discussed this in detail a while ago. I feel no need to revisit the discussion.

 

[The Real John Milton]

We discussed this in detail a while ago. I feel no need to revisit the discussion.

“The word put on flesh” is not a “paraphrase” of “the Word became flesh.” Anyone can see that. γίνομαι never has this meaning in the bible. Your are trafficking in a lie if you think you have addressed this issue.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Here was the so-called “detailed discussion. “ Notice it was hardly detailed. Worse still, in that thread, as over here, he never showed a verse in the bible where γίνομαι means “put on.” He hopes that just by saying that he has “discussed this issue in detail” he can fool people into thinking that he has answered that particular question, and other pertinent questions which he has consistently evaded.

If ἐνεδύσατο σάρκα is a “paraphrase” of σὰρξ ἐγένετο, then where in the bible does ἐγένετο have the same meaning as ἐνεδύσατο ?

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Here was the so-called “detailed discussion. “ Notice it was hardly detailed. Worse still, in that thread, as over here, he never showed a verse in the bible where γίνομαι means “put on.” He hopes that just by saying that he has “discussed this issue in detail” he can fool people into thinking that he has answered that particular question, and other pertinent questions which he has consistently evaded.

If ἐνεδύσατο σάρκα is a “paraphrase” of σὰρξ ἐγένετο, then where in the bible does ἐγένετο have the same meaning as ἐνεδύσατο ?

What you have is someone who knew ancient Greek far better than you ever will interacting with the text and telling us what he thought it meant. However for the idea of "becoming" something in terms of addition without changing the basic nature, try Matt 5:45:

ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς...

 

[Roger Thornhill]

What you have is someone who knew ancient Greek far better than you ever will interacting with the text and telling us what he thought it meant. However for the idea of "becoming" something in terms of addition without changing the basic nature, try Matt 5:45:

ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς...

The NASB renders this as the idiom prove to be, also a category in BDAG.

44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven;

Are you saying that they become sons by loving their enemies? The thought here seems to be that those who did this outwardly demonstrated what they already were.

 

[The Real John Milton]

What you have is someone who knew ancient Greek far better than you ever will interacting with the text and telling us what he thought it meant.

That is not an argument but a courtier's reply (a type of fallacy). What we have in Athanasius is someone who was trying to massage scripture to fit his doctrine. That he may have known better (because his Greek was apparently good) yet still did so, makes his crime worse, if anything.

However for the idea of "becoming" something in terms of addition without changing the basic nature, try Matt 5:45:

ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς...

As Roger pointed out, this is not a parallel example.

Let me explain to you why not in the form of a simple (Y/N) question: Can you "paraphrase" Matt. 5:45 as saying that these people ενεδυον υἱοὺς τοῦ πατρὸς ?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

That is not an argument but a courtier's reply (a type of fallacy). What we have in Athanasius is someone who was trying to massage scripture to fit his doctrine. That he may have known better (because his Greek was apparently good) yet still did so, makes his crime worse, if anything.



As Roger pointed out, this is not a parallel example.

Let me explain to you why not in the form of a simple (Y/N) question: Can you "paraphrase" Matt. 5:45 as saying that these people ενεδυον υἱοὺς τοῦ πατρὸς ?

Be careful what you ask for. I can do that.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Be careful what you ask for. I can do that.

You can “paraphrase” γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς as ενεδυον υἱοὺς τοῦ πατρὸς ? Let’s see if Gryllus agrees with you.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

L

You can “paraphrase” γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς as ενεδυον υἱοὺς τοῦ πατρὸς ? Let’s see if Gryllus agrees with you.

Let's just say that I was a son and a cousin before I got married and then added "husband" to my list of titles.

 

[The Real John Milton]

L

Let's just say that I was a son and a cousin before I got married and then added "husband" to my list of titles.

You don’t “add” or “put on” a husband, rather you “become” one. It’s exactly the same in Greek I’m saying , grammatically, that’s not a possibility.

In other words, is it proper English to say “I put on a husband” ? The answer, IMHO, is no. We say “I became a husband.” The same holds true in Greek.

 

[The Real John Milton]

ἐνεδύσατο σάρκα is only sensible if σάρκα means “human nature.” But the problem is that then σὰρξ ἐγένετο stops making sense— “ became human nature” ? Non-starter.

Think about this.