You started an explanation, thank you. And you agreed that he became this at his resurrection.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:
You started an explanation, thank you. And you agreed that he became this at his resurrection.
But the OP also addressed J 1:4 which is too early in the prologue to be applied to the resurrection. If it did one would need to consider creation in the prologue to be a reference to the new creation.
Did you see my question to you on J 1:4?
The real issue here is the definition of the direct object of the verb. When it is "authority" it obviously means give authority.But he has not addressed the fact that “gave” is not interchangeable with “allowed,” either in English or in Greek.
For instance take a look at Mark 6:28
καὶ τὸ κοράσιον ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτῆς.
“and she gave it ( John the Baptist’s head) to her mother.”
If we substitute “gave” above for “allowed” we end up with nonsense. The same is true at John 5:26. Trapeza refuses to address this issue. He just keeps stubbornly repeating that John 5:26 says “the Father allowed the Son to have life in himself” no matter what I say, as though dumb repetition will magically become a valid explanation if done often enough.
Very succinct.
I was just trying something out as far as forum styles are concerned. It didn’t do what I had hoped, and there was no way to delete the post. So, I just removed the text.Very succinct.
It's not something that the Son as θεος could already do but merely needed the authority.
The Trinitarian can accept this and wink at his fellow Trinitarians as they nod back in agreement while silently qualifying this as applying only to the human Jesus, but that makes no sense unless the human Jesus has less authority than the divine Jesus who is another person. Mere authority is not ontological.
Paul’s statement apparently, I think (without much investigation), refers to Jesus at his resurrection. I don’t see why you think that Jesus being a source of life has anything to do with his knowledge or any type of revelation he received. Where did you get that idea? It would have to do with his righteousness and faithfulness until death. Either way, during his life he was able to give life from his own word. This is different from the prophets who raised the dead, since they did not do it of their own word.You started an explanation, thank you. And you agreed that he became this at his resurrection.
But the OP also addressed J 1:4 which is too early in the prologue to be applied to the resurrection. If it did one would need to consider creation in the prologue to be a reference to the new creation.
Did you see my question to you on J 1:4?
What does “life” mean? Is this a trick question? I don’t understand why you’re asking this. “Life” means “life”—that things move, grow, process energy, reproduce. When things cease to do this, they are dead. Death is lack of life.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?
Yes, all but my last question:Well, I ended up having a bit more time tonight than I had expected, so I’ll give some sort of a reply.
Paul’s statement apparently, I think (without much investigation), refers to Jesus at his resurrection. I don’t see why you think that Jesus being a source of life has anything to do with his knowledge or any type of revelation he received. Where did you get that idea? It would have to do with his righteousness and faithfulness until death. Either way, during his life he was able to give life from his own word. This is different from the prophets who raised the dead, since they did not do it of their own word.
What does “life” mean? Is this a trick question? I don’t understand why you’re asking this. “Life” means “life”—that things move, grow, process energy, reproduce. When things cease to do this, they are dead. Death is lack of life.
The fact that Jesus could say even during his own life that he was “the resurrection and the life” shows that this had something do with with him even before his ascension. The author of GJohn has Jesus existing as the Logos before his incarnation (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, which indicates that the Logos was something other than flesh up to that point—since it was classified as θεός before becoming σάρξ).
Does that make it any clearer?
Oh, well, I would assume that it ἐγένετο “came to be” there means something akin to ἐκτίσθη “was created.” That is, all living things came into existence in him (in the instrumental sense). The Logos would be the first of God’s creative acts, and in it life founds its spark and came into existence. Nothing came into existence apart from the Logos, and that which had its beginning in him/it was life itself.And in what sense did it (life) come into existence in the Word?
I’d also be interested in where you got the idea that this had to do with some revelation that Jesus received. That seems very odd to me.I don’t see why you think that Jesus being a source of life has anything to do with his knowledge or any type of revelation he received. Where did you get that idea?
John 5:26οὕτως καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ cannot be translated as “he made it possible for the son to be the source of life.” It is nowhere close to what the Greek says. I just don’t think Trapeza knows what he is talking about. Is there any bible which translates it this way ?
Plenty of them render it as I have explained, though what you’re trying to force me into having said, no. I explained clearly that διδόναι means grant, allow or permit. This is not controversial in the least, but you like to argue about stupid things.Is there any bible which translates it this way ?
Look up the thread for my complete explanation but J 5:19-20 indicates that the Father showed him what he did before Jesus did it himself and BDAG says this is "divine revelation."@Roger Thornhill
I’d also be interested in where you got the idea that this had to do with some revelation that Jesus received. That seems very odd to me.
John 5:26
Christian Standard Bible
For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself.
New International Version
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
New Living Translation
The Father has life in himself, and he has granted that same life-giving power to his Son.
English Standard Version
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
Berean Study Bible
For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.
New King James Version
For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.
Good News Translation
Just as the Father is himself the source of life, in the same way he has made his Son to be the source of life.
NET Bible
For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself.
Several top-notch Bible translations agree with exactly what I said—that God granted his son to have life in himself, to be a source of life.
Plenty of them render it as I have explained, though what you’re trying to force me into having said, no. I explained clearly that διδόναι means grant, allow or permit. This is not controversial in the least, but you like to argue about stupid things.
Look at the verse in Acts that follows J 5:20 in the entry for διδωμι that you posted and see that the disciples were "granted" to speak with boldness but did so by means of Holy Spirit. In this case and in J 5:20 God was the one who enabled the action.John 5:26
Christian Standard Bible
For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself.
New International Version
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
New Living Translation
The Father has life in himself, and he has granted that same life-giving power to his Son.
English Standard Version
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
Berean Study Bible
For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.
New King James Version
For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.
Good News Translation
Just as the Father is himself the source of life, in the same way he has made his Son to be the source of life.
NET Bible
For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself.
Several top-notch Bible translations agree with exactly what I said—that God granted his son to have life in himself, to be a source of life.
Plenty of them render it as I have explained, though what you’re trying to force me into having said, no. I explained clearly that διδόναι means grant, allow or permit. This is not controversial in the least, but you like to argue about stupid things.
In the latter it infers that Jesus was capable of having life in himself but needed authority to exercise it.Roger,
Since you are the impartial participant here, consider the following statements:
(1) "God gave Jesus to have life in himself " (me)
(2) "God allowed Jesus to have life in himself" (Trapeza)
Questions:
(a) Is sentence (1) saying something different than sentence (2) ?
(b) If yes, what is the difference in meaning between sentence (1) and (2) ?
Seems like you are contradicting yourself here:Oh, well, I would assume that it ἐγένετο “came to be” there means something akin to ἐκτίσθη “was created.” That is, all living things came into existence in him (in the instrumental sense). The Logos would be the first of God’s creative acts, and in it life founds its spark and came into existence. Nothing came into existence apart from the Logos, and that which had its beginning in him/it was life itself.
The fact that Jesus could say even during his own life and the life” shows that this had something do with with him even before his ascension. The author of GJohn has Jesus existing as the Logos before his incarnation (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, which indicates that the Logos was something other than flesh up to that point—since it was classified as θεός before becoming σάρξ).
Does that make it any clearer?