Christ received life from God at John 1:4 and 5:26 according to Robertson

[Roger Thornhill]

Whereas Jews had always thought of life coming only from Yahweh, he made it possible for the son to be the source of life. He permitted him to have life in himself, to be a lifegiving spirit (πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν), as Paul stated (1 Cor. 15:45). Only God could have been considered the life-giving spirit, but he shared that with Christ, according to both John and Paul. If you weren’t so stubborn, you’d agree with me. What I’m saying isn’t controversial.

I would like to point out that in Paul it's what Christ became (γίνομαι), a life-giving spirit, and not something granted to someone who already had the capability.

 

[τράπεζα]

I would like to point out that in Paul it's what Christ became (γίνομαι), a life-giving spirit, and not something granted to someone who already had the capability.

Oh, absolutely. I didn’t read it otherwise. ἐγένετο... ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν. It certainly says “he became.”

 

[The Real John Milton]

Whereas Jews had always thought of life coming only from Yahweh, he made it possible for the son to be the source of life. He permitted him to have life in himself, to be a lifegiving spirit (πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν), as Paul stated (1 Cor. 15:45). Only God could have been considered the life-giving spirit, but he shared that with Christ, according to both John and Paul. If you weren’t so stubborn, you’d agree with me. What I’m saying isn’t controversial.

I'm asking what "permitted him to have life in himself" (bold above) means ? Repeating that phrase without explaining it does not help your cause or answer my question. How can you "permit" someone to have life ? Either someone has life or they don't. You can "permit" someone to go to a party, or to a store etc., for example, but life is something someone exists with, it is not permitted someone, it can only be given to them (usually by God, in the bible).

Please address this issue without your usual ad hominems and evasions. Address my question head on. I would appreciate that.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Oh, absolutely. I didn’t read it otherwise. ἐγένετο... ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν. It certainly says “he became.”

Glad you realize that . By the way when the verse says that “he became a life giving spirit” it is not speaking ontologically, that is not of Jesus literally becoming a spirit or a phantom etc., but to the fact that he became someone who could give life to others. Here “spirit” is a synecdoche meaning “person” / “being.”

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Glad you realize that . By the way when the verse says that “he became a life giving spirit” it is not speaking ontologically, that is not of Jesus literally becoming a spirit or a phantom etc., but to the fact that he became someone who could give life to others. Here “spirit” is a synecdoche meaning “person” / “being.”

And yet his resurrection body was not composed of dust like Adam according to 1 Co 15.

 

[The Real John Milton]

And yet his resurrection body was not composed of dust like Adam according to 1 Co 15.

Yes, that’s just his body, but in 1 Cor. 15:45 it is speaking of him ( as opposed to his body), of what he became.

 

[τράπεζα]

I'm asking what "permitted him to have life in himself" (bold above) means ? Repeating that phrase without explaining it does not help your cause or answer my question. How can you "permit" someone to have life ? Either someone has life or they don't. You can "permit" someone to go to a party, or to a store etc., for example, but life is something someone exists with, it is not permitted someone, it can only be given to them (usually by God, in the bible).

Please address this issue without your usual ad hominems and evasions. Address my question head on. I would appreciate that.

If you asked me what “I ate pizza” means, I would just not know how to progress. You are asking a stupid question. I don’t see that I am responsible for answering stupid questions. Sorry.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

If you asked me what “I ate pizza” means, I would just not know how to progress. You are asking a stupid question. I don’t see that I am responsible for answering stupid questions. Sorry.

Let me ask you this since you gave your rendering of John 1:1 and I gave you a link to my expository rendering:

Using the punctuation Robertson (see the OP) uses and that is in our critical editions (NA and UBS), what is the meaning of the word "life" at John 1:4? Do you accept BDAG on this since you quote it for John 5:26? And in what sense did it come into existence in the Word?

 

[The Real John Milton]

If you asked me what “I ate pizza” means, I would just not know how to progress. You are asking a stupid question. I don’t see that I am responsible for answering stupid questions. Sorry.

Insulting a question and then compounding the problem with a false analogy does not get you off the hook though. “I ate pizza” makes perfect sense, but “God permitted him to have life in himself” is rather a strange thing to say, especially if you won’t explain it, and especially when no one translates John 5:26 in this way.

Roger, do you know what that statement means ? Apparently it has as straightforward a meaning as “I ate pizza.”

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Insulting a question and then compounding the problem with a false analogy does not get you off the hook though. “I ate pizza” makes perfect sense, but “God permitted him to have life in himself” is rather a strange thing to say, especially if you won’t explain it, and especially when no one translates John 5:26 in this way.

Roger, do you know what that statement means ? Apparently it has as straightforward a meaning as “I ate pizza.”

I can speculate.

God gave his Son the password to the database that holds the DNA sequence and the record of memory for every person who has ever lived so that he can resurrect any that he wants.

 

[The Real John Milton]

(1) I can speculate.

(2) God gave his Son the password to the database that holds the DNA sequence and the record of memory for every person who has ever lived so that he can resurrect any that he wants.

(1) I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that statement is not as straightforward as saying “I ate pizza .”

(2) So John 5:26 is NOT saying that the Father gave eternal life to the son , rather it is saying that the son was given the power to impart eternal life to others ? Is that a fair characterization ?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

(1) I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that statement is not as straightforward as saying “I ate pizza .”

(2) So John 5:26 is NOT saying that the Father gave eternal life to the son , rather it is saying that the son was given the power to impart eternal life to others ? Is that a fair characterization ?

Yes, because J 5:26 is the apodosis to 5:25.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Yes, because J 5:26 is the apodosis to 5:25.

One of the big problems with that is that the text does not say God “allowed” ( assuming for the sake of argument that δίδωμι means that!) the Son “to impart eternal life to others,” but “to have eternal life in himself” (ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ). No , it certainly does not pass the smell test for me, on multiple levels.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Trinitarian commentaries have a hard time with this verse, though to their credit most do not try to change the meaning of the word δίδωμι nor to redefine the phrase ἔχειν ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ to mean “to impart life to others.” Here is one for instance, Elliott:

To the Son who had emptied Himself of the exercise of the attributes which constituted the glory of that state (comp. again Phil 2 seq.), it was part of the Father’s gift by which He exalted Him exceedingly, and gave Him the name which is above every name. It was, then, a gift in time to One who had possessed it before all time, and for the purposes of the mediatorial work had relinquished it. It was a gift, not to the Eternal Son, but to the Incarnate Word.

It acknowledges that God gave life to the Son “in time,” but apparently the Son had already possessed the same “before time.” It’s nonsense, but that is what they are reduced to if they wish to remain even partially faithful to what Jesus actually said.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

One of the big problems with that is that the text does not say God “allowed” ( assuming for the sake of argument that δίδωμι means that!) the Son “to impart eternal life to others,” but “to have eternal life in himself” (ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ). No , it certainly does not pass the smell test for me, on multiple levels.

I did not say it means allowed.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I did not say it means allowed.

Yes I know. I was speaking to all those who think that δίδωμι in John 5:26 means that.

 

[τράπεζα]

“God permitted him to have life in himself” is rather a strange thing to say, especially if you won’t explain it,

I did explain it. I explained it clearly. I just don’t feel like repeating myself for someone who is insincere in his request for information. Look! I explained what I meant right there:

Whereas Jews had always thought of life coming only from Yahweh, he made it possible for the son to be the source of life. He permitted him to have life in himself, to be a lifegiving spirit (πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν), as Paul stated (1 Cor. 15:45). Only God could have been considered the life-giving spirit, but he shared that with Christ, according to both John and Paul. If you weren’t so stubborn, you’d agree with me. What I’m saying isn’t controversial.

 

[τράπεζα]

when the verse says that “he became a life giving spirit” it is not speaking ontologically

I don’t care about the words you use without comprehension. You try to convolute everything. The writers of the New Testament would never have said, “Oh, I’m clearly not speaking ontologically. Obviously, folks.” You use words you don’t know in order to act like you know something great. You don’t. You’re clearly the biggest ignoramus of this board.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I did explain it. I explained it clearly. I just don’t feel like repeating myself for someone who is insincere in his request for information. Look! I explained what I meant right there:

Is that why everyone so far has to speculate about what you apparently explained ?

 

[The Real John Milton]

I don’t care about the words you use without comprehension. You try to convolute everything. The writers of the New Testament would never have said, “Oh, I’m clearly not speaking ontologically. Obviously, folks.” You use words you don’t know in order to act like you know something great. You don’t. You’re clearly the biggest ignoramus of this board.

You have to read and understand the bible with a little bit of common sense. When the writer wrote that Jesus became “a life giving spirit “ he obviously did not mean to say that he became a non-human, ghost of some sort. Rather it is simply a statement, within his immediate context, asserting that he became someone who gives life ( to other people) .