Asyndeton in John 1:1-4

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I said your claim was false, and I've conclusively demonstrated that. I couldn't tell you why you imagine the situation is any different than this. I guess it's the same stupidity that causes you to make confident assertions about a language that you don't know that aren't shared by a single person who knows the language.
How come your proof is always in some unidentifiable post that I have already rebutted and which you have abandoned.

If we could dispense with the personal comments just address real exegesis this thread would not be so hard to navigate. It's mostly bickering.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
How come your proof is always in some unidentifiable post that I have already rebutted and which you have abandoned.
It's not. That's the lie you always resort to.
If we could dispense with the personal comments just address real exegesis this thread would not be so hard to navigate. It's mostly bickering.
No. It's relevant and factual information. The two of you are lying idiots.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
It doesn't matter what you believe the chronology is. There is only one creation event, it doesn't matter when it happened in sequence.

You just assert that. But I can explain it. There is only one event where God made all things through the Word.

Where I and I think Bauer agree against your view is that another event is described at 1:4 as being unique, when the uniquely begotten deity was begotten and not made by the Father through the Word. It's why Bauer considers μονογενης to be πρωτότοκος. And it's not part of verse 3. I think that Athanasius would agree, but we part company with the eternal begetting nonsense that's pure fiction.

It's contrasted in the perfect tense because it was already completed by the time that what was being made was being made in verse 3. In fact I can see that those being born today might be included in verse 3. Not sure because the aorist does not tell us for sure.





Your view imagines two creation events. That's not possible.


??? There is no need for you to elaborate. You'll only say something else dumb.

I have to chuckle when someone says their "understanding" is correct and they neither know Greek nor have a single person who does that will support their view. At least I have reason to laugh.

It is clear you can't find support for two creations, or you would have that in your "scholarly paper."

I haven't made a single assumption. I have argued directly from what the text actually says.

Knowing what ζωὴ means has absolutely no bearing on the fact that there is only a single creation event, not the two that you erroneously claim. Do you understand what your insurmountable obstacle is?
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
You just assert that. But I can explain it. There is only one event where God made all things through the Word.
This is just your attempt to say there were multiple creation events by classifying one as a creation event where things were created through the word and another as a creation event where life in the word was created. This makes two creations rather than the one creation spoken of in the text.
Where I and I think Bauer agree against your view is that another event is described at 1:4 as being unique, when the uniquely begotten deity was begotten and not made by the Father through the Word.
In John 1 the word is only said to have existed. Anything else is an eisegetical understanding of the text. The word is never said to have come into existence or have been begotten or have been made.
It's why Bauer considers μονογενης to be πρωτότοκος. And it's not part of verse 3. I think that Athanasius would agree, but we part company with the eternal begetting nonsense that pure fiction.
Any view of John 1 that asserts anything other than that the word is said to have been in existence is "nonsense" and "pure fiction."
It's in the perfect tense because it was already completed by the time that what was being made was being made in verse 3.
That would mean 1) That the word became alive. 2) That there are two creation events mentioned in John 1. Both of these are false.

The word was already said to exist with God and to be God so whatever you mean by "life" it doesn't mean that the Word became alive or was given life by the Father for the first time. Likewise, there is only a single creation event mentioned. You are adding another to reconcile your theology. There is nothing in the text to justify that.

I don't "just assert" anything. I follow what the text says. The text says the word was with God. This means that the word was in existence before the creation event in verse 3. That alone is fatal to your argument. But the text goes on to say that the all things were made through the word. This also means that the word was in existence because of two reasons. 1) If he weren't in existence, he could not have made all things. 2) If he were created, he would have to have been created during the creation event in verse 3.

You've got no argument.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Ok. So address my question for the benefit of those here who are not too stupid.
The only people here, as far as I know, are you, Roger, and me. I already know what I mean, and the rest of you are too stupid. If any other person comes in here, I'll be glad to explain to them what I mean if they ask. If they are of average intelligence, though, they probably won't need me to.
 
Last edited:

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
This is just your attempt to say there were multiple creation events by classifying one as a creation event where things were created through the word and another as a creation event where life in the word was created. This makes two creations rather than the one creation spoken of in the text.

You are the one pigeonholing What God made through the Word and His causing life to come into existence "in" the Word as one "creation" event when the word κτίζω is not even in the text! Eisegesis!

In John 1 the word is only said to have existed.
The Word existed at J 1:1a but was not θεος. He faced God at 1:1b but was not θεος. At 1:1c he is θεος.



Ge 2:7a And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground [man existed]
Ge 2:7b and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; [Man faced God so God could energize his lifeless body.]
Ge 2:7b and man became a living soul. [Now Adam was a living human being. What came to be in him was life.]

What made the Word θεος at J 1:1c? What came to be in him was life. It's in the perfect tense and complete. It's the only perfect in the prologue. It was completed first and contrasted with what happened in 1:3 with aorist.



Anything else is an eisegetical understanding of the text. The word is never said to have come into existence or have been begotten or have been made.

No, but according to Eerdmans, Athanasius thought he came from the Father then. You see Athanasius read the text with the NA punctuation.

Any view of John 1 that asserts anything other than that the word is said to have been in existence is "nonsense" and "pure fiction."

Thanks for your opinion. I don't claim my view is the only possibility. In fact Bauer said μονογενης means firstborn in John and 1 John. He calls Christ a uniquely begotten deity. I don't claim my view is the only possibility. So if you could do more than assert it's impossible with your burden of proof, you would be performing your responsibility in this discussion

That would mean 1) That the word became alive. 2) That there are two creation events mentioned in John 1. Both of these are false.

See above



The word was already said to exist with God and to be God so whatever you mean by "life" it

Already? That's your theology and that word is not in the text.

doesn't mean that the Word became alive or was given life by the Father for the first time. Likewise, there is only a single creation event mentioned. You are adding another to reconcile your theology. There is nothing in the text to justify that.

Bauer and Athanasius apparently disagree.



I don't "just assert" anything. I follow what the text says. The text says the word was with God. This means that the word was in existence before the creation event in verse 3.

That's true but not because the grammar dictates it. If every chaise were linked with και, you would have an argument.

Because it's legitimate and actually most frequent that και does this when linking clauses. Like in 1:1 a,b and c. But you apparently read J 1:1 as if it was all one so that "in the beginning the Word was, was already with God, was already God.

That alone is fatal to your argument. But the text goes on to say that the all things were made through the word. This also means that the word was in existence because of two reasons. 1) If he weren't in existence, he could not have made all things. 2) If he were created, he would have to have been created during the creation event in verse 3.

You've got no argument.

You are forcing a chronological sequence of events that would need all clauses connected by και. You also don't see that the only thing that was completed already in the prologue with the perfect is when life came to be in the Word.

That makes it the most important part of the prologue! It rises above every other event in important, the beginning of the firstborn Son of God as a uniquely begotten deity.

Gotta love Bauer. I'm kinda also warming up to Athanasius.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
You are the one pigeonholing What God made through the Word and His causing life to come into existence "in" the Word as one "creation" event when the word κτίζω is not even in the text! Eisegesis!
Careful, Roger, your ignorance is shining through even more than normal. Check BDAG. You will find that ἐγένετο will support that understanding. κτίζω isn't necessary.
The Word existed at J 1:1a but was not θεος. He faced God at 1:1b but was not θεος. At 1:1c he is θεος.
I would laugh at your tortured understanding of this verse if it weren't so serious.There is no temporal sequence here. The word that exists in 1a is the same word that was with God in 1:b and the same word that was God in 1:c. I will laugh at your rendering "faced God." That is almost always the mark of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Ge 2:7a And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground [man existed]
Ge 2:7b and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; [Man faced God so God could energize his lifeless body.]
Ge 2:7b and man became a living soul. [Now Adam was a living human being. What came to be in him was life.]
This is irrelevant. You are silly for even comparing the two; they are nothing alike.
What made the Word θεος at J 1:1c?
Nothing. He was always God. The text says so. It's "the Word was God," not "the word became God."
What came to be in him was life. It's in the perfect tense and complete. It's the only perfect in the prologue. It was completed first and contrasted with what happened in 1:3 with aorist.
You would have us believe that John is a very stupid author. According to you he begins by following a very strict chronological sequence in John 1:1 where every single clause refers to a distinct time period. First, the word is an inanimate something. Then, it is an inanimate something that somehow comes to face God like a statue on a mantle. Finally, the word becomes* God at some undefined point later than 1a and 1b. (*Which isn't even possible with the verb that he used in John 1:1a.)

It is at this point (John 1:2) that John tells us that the Word that became God was actually in the beginning with God all along, letting the reader know that he must've just been kidding about all the other stuff in 1a and 1b.

Then, he says in John 1:3a that the word having become God (but he hasn't told us this yet) created all things through himself. Except, he then clarifies in 1:3b and 1:4 that the word didn't actually create all things; he only created some things. Because, he tells us, the word did not make life in himself. That life that arose in him was given to him, apparently while he was the inanimate something facing God (mentioned in 1b and 1c) prior to the "beginning" he mentioned in John 1:1. Which he did not mean was the actual beginning. It was simply a beginning.

This is, effectively, what you are saying, whether you realized it or intended it.
No, but according to Eerdmans, Athanasius thought he came from the Father then. You see Athanasius read the text with the NA punctuation.
Athanasius would've called you a heretic.
Thanks for your opinion. I don't claim my view is the only possibility. In fact Bauer said μονογενης means firstborn in John and 1 John. He calls Christ a uniquely begotten deity. I don't claim my view is the only possibility. So if you could do more than assert it's impossible with your burden of proof, you would be performing your responsibility in this discussion
Here comes your sad, tired mantra again. If you claimed you knew Greek, you'd believe it was a valid possibility simply because you didn't claim it was the only possibility. The problem for you is that the truth doesn't work that way. You can make any claim you want to, but the claim isn't a possibility by simple virtue of having been expressed.
See above
You didn't say anything that dealt with these issues.
Already? That's your theology and that word is not in the text.
Yes, already. As in that's what "was" means, and that it was already mentioned in the text before your supposed second creation.
Bauer and Athanasius apparently disagree.
No. As usual, you don't understand them and misrepresent them.
That's true but not because the grammar dictates it. If every chaise were linked with και, you would have an argument.

Because it's legitimate and actually most frequent that και does this when linking clauses. Like in 1:1 a,b and c. But you apparently read J 1:1 as if it was all one so that "in the beginning the Word was, was already with God, was already God.
That's exactly what the text means. Verse 2 should make that clear even to someone as stupid as yourself.
You are forcing a chronological sequence of events that would need all clauses connected by και.
That's not the function of και.
You also don't see that the only thing that was completed already in the prologue with the perfect is when life came to be in the Word.
That's because it's not true.
That makes it the most important part of the prologue!
It is, perhaps, the most important part of the prologue. It keeps all but the most willfully ignorant of people from misunderstanding what John says. It takes a special kind of idiot to distort John's words as much as you have.
It rises above every other event in important, the beginning of the firstborn Son of God as a uniquely begotten deity. Gotta love Bauer. I'm kinda also warming up to Athanasius.
You liking Bauer and Athanasius is like a mouse befriending a snake. It's funny; I'll grant you that.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You are the one pigeonholing What God made through the Word and His causing life to come into existence "in" the Word as one "creation" event when the word κτίζω is not even in the text! Eisegesis!
Careful, Roger, your ignorance is shining through even more than normal. Check BDAG. You will find that ἐγένετο will support that understanding. κτίζω isn't necessary.

RT:
You are making an argument based on just one sense of a word. This is an example how your argument is presuppositional.

Nice diversion. My main point is:
You are the one pigeonholing What God made through the Word and His causing life to come into existence "in" the Word as one "creation"

Consider:

One Creation Event?
Ge 2:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It really depends on the perspective.
1 Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve;
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Careful, Roger, your ignorance is shining through even more than normal. Check BDAG. You will find that ἐγένετο will support that understanding. κτίζω isn't necessary.

RT:
You are making an argument based on just one sense of a word. This is an example how your argument is presuppositional.

Nice diversion. My main point is:


Consider:

One Creation Event?
Ge 2:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It really depends on the perspective.
1 Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve;
Your problem, yet again, is that you run off to any other passage but John 1 in your attempt to understand it.

The author plainly gives us the perspective we need to understand the text. He mentions only one creation, and he uses the aorist to do so. That simply means that he is viewing the process as a completed act without comment on the duration or all the particulars of that act. Going just a bit further down the page you can read "ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο." (Grace and truth arose through Christ.) This doesn't necessarily mean that grace and truth happened at one instant (though it could have), nor does it necessarily mean that grace and truth unfolded as a process (though it could have). The point is that the activity is viewed as a singular event, regardless of how long that process took. So it is with John 1:3-4.

Your "understanding," on the other hand, disregards the perspective that scripture gives us here. There is no other creative act mentioned in which the things that had been created (ὃ γέγονεν) could've been created than that mentioned in John 1:3. But instead of placing the statements that follow it in that context, the context in which they so obviously belong, you have mistakenly (worse, willfully) attached them instead to a concept that you perversely introduced to the text.

You must come to terms with John's text on its own merits before you can successfully fit it into the larger picture of scripture. You still haven't got a clue what John says.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Your problem, yet again, is that you run off to any other passage but John 1 in your attempt to understand it.

The author plainly gives us the perspective we need to understand the text. He mentions only one creation, and he uses the aorist to do so. That simply means that he is viewing the process as a completed act without comment on the duration or all the particulars of that act. Going just a bit further down the page you can read "ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο." (Grace and truth arose through Christ.) This doesn't necessarily mean that grace and truth happened at one instant (though it could have), nor does it necessarily mean that grace and truth unfolded as a process (though it could have). The point is that the activity is viewed as a singular event, regardless of how long that process took. So it is with John 1:3-4.

Your "understanding," on the other hand, disregards the perspective that scripture gives us here. There is no other creative act mentioned in which the things that had been created (ὃ γέγονεν) could've been created than that mentioned in John 1:3. But instead of placing the statements that follow it in that context, the context in which they so obviously belong, you have mistakenly (worse, willfully) attached them instead to a concept that you perversely introduced to the text.

You must come to terms with John's text on its own merits before you can successfully fit it into the larger picture of scripture. You still haven't got a clue what John says.

According to Eerdmans the view of this text by some ECF does indicate the beginning of the Word, just not in "time." And they spoke Greek natively.

In Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse1, chapter 4, section 11 (page 312 of the Eerdmans Nicene and Post-Nicene volume 4), we read in explanation of what Athanasius wrote about John 1.1: “Athan. observes that this formula of the Arian is a mere evasion to escape using the word 'time' vid. also Cyril, Thesaur. iv. 19,20. Else let them explain 'There was what when the Son was not' or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which he created, de Decr 18, "note 5. Thus if 'when' be a word of time, He it is who was 'when' He was not which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that is was the Father who 'was' before the Son? This is true, if 'before' was taken, not to imply time, but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. Jon's Gospel may be interpreted 'In the beginning,' or Origin, i.e. in the Father 'was the word.' Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat iv. I vid. also Orat iii.9; Nyssen. contr. Eumon. iii. p 106; Cyril Thesaur. 32. p 312" - Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse1, chapter 4, section 11 (page 312 of the Eerdmans Nicene and Post-Nicene volume 4)
 
Top