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

[τράπεζα]

Seems like you are contradicting yourself here:

I’m not trying to come up with a systematic theology or to harmonize different writers’ texts. I allow each author to write in his own words (δίδωμι παντὶ συγγραφεῖ ἐν τοῖς ἰδίος λόγοις γράψαι = ἐῶ πάντα συγγραφέα ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις λόγοις γράψαι)* and to have his own thoughts. I don’t generally try to force Paul to agree with John.
_____
* Both διδόναι/δοῦναι (δίδωμι) and ἐᾶν/ἐᾶσαι (ἐάω) can mean “to allow.” διδόναι will be followed with the dative, whereas ἐᾶσαι is followed by the accusative. I think it’s better to refer to verbs in their infinitive forms (either present or aorist) rather than in their present indicative active 1cs form.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I’m not trying to come up with a systematic theology or to harmonize different writers’ texts. I allow each author to write in his own words (δίδωμι παντὶ συγγραφεῖ ἐν τοῖς ἰδίος λόγοις γράψαι = ἐῶ πάντα συγγραφέα ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις λόγοις γράψαι)* and to have his own thoughts. I don’t generally try to force Paul to agree with John.
_____
* Both διδόναι/δοῦναι (δίδωμι) and ἐᾶν/ἐᾶσαι (ἐάω) can mean “to allow.” διδόναι will be followed with the dative, whereas ἐᾶσαι is followed by the accusative. I think it’s better to refer to verbs in their infinitive forms (either present or aorist) rather than in their present indicative active 1cs form.

I said you seemed contradictory when you said regarding John 1:
###
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.
###

But you said earlier on the same passage:
---
Do you think that life existed when it was just God in eternity past? Just God. All by his lonesome self. Did life exist? Did God have life within himself from eternity past?

I really don’t understand how ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦνwould indicate anything like what you’re suggesting. If life came into existence in the Logos, that doesn’t mean that God gave life to the Logos. There is no logical connection here between these two things. If it had said that ὁ θεὸς τῷ λόγῳ ζωὴν ἔδωκεν or ὁ θεὸς τὸν λόγον ἐζωοποίησεν (both “God gave life to the Logos”), you would have a point. There’s nothing here that expresses the idea that the Logos was ever not living. It says that life came into existence in the Logos, not that the Logos came into existence.

Where do you see something like that in this passage?
---

Not only is the same writer but the same exact text.

Maybe CARM had a glitch and someone else wrote the first comment?

 

[τράπεζα]

Maybe CARM had a glitch and someone else wrote the first comment?

Indeed, no. I wrote them both. I see now what you find to be contradictory. Namely, that I wrote:

The Logos would be the first of God’s creative acts, and in it life founds its spark and came into existence.

And then I wrote:

It says that life came into existence in the Logos, not that the Logos came into existence.

There is nothing in GJohn that says that the Logos ever came into existence. It is just described as πρὸς τὸν θεόν (“with God”) in the beginning. I do think that Paul envisioned ὁ υἱός (he never used the term λόγος as a designation of pre-incarnate Jesus) as having somehow been “born” of God at some point in time. I didn’t mean to imply that GJohn made that claim. I can see now that I wasn’t clear, and that lack of clarity came across as a self-contradiction. The first “came into existence” above was about life, not about the Logos. When I said that the Logos was the first of God’s creative acts, I was referring to Paul’s “firstborn over all creation” and other statements.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Indeed, no. I wrote them both. I see now what you find to be contradictory. Namely, that I wrote:


And then I wrote:


There is nothing in GJohn that says that the Logos ever came into existence. It is just described as πρὸς τὸν θεόν (“with God”) in the beginning. I do think that Paul envisioned ὁ υἱός (he never used the term λόγος as a designation of pre-incarnate Jesus) as having somehow been “born” of God at some point in time. I didn’t mean to imply that GJohn made that claim. I can see now that I wasn’t clear, and that lack of clarity came across as a self-contradiction. The first “came into existence” above was about life, not about the Logos. When I said that the Logos was the first of God’s creative acts, I was referring to Paul’s “firstborn over all creation” and other statements.

I think it is strongly inferred from John's use of αρχή in the context of creation. For example in Revelation 3:14 BDAG says: of Christ ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως Rv 3:14; but the mng.beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable

We don't see God "in the beginning." We see life come into existence in the Word and the Word in the beginning.

 

[τράπεζα]

I think it is strongly inferred from John's use of αρχή in the context of creation. For example in Revelation 3:14 BDAG says: of Christ ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως Rv 3:14; but the mng.beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable

We don't see God "in the beginning." We see life come into existence in the Word and the Word in the beginning.

The adverbial ἐν ἀρχῇ is extended to the entire first verse by ellipsis:

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ [ἐν ἀρχῇ] ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ [ἐν ἀρχῇ] θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.​

That same adverbial “in the beginning” applies to each of the phrases in the verse. Since the Logos was there in the beginning, and the Logos was with God in the beginning, then God was also there in the beginning. That just makes logical sense. It doesn’t need to be spelled out.

I agree regarding the meaning of ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως “the beginning of the creation,” though. That said, I don’t try to force the theology of the Revelation onto the other writers of the NT documents. Whereas Paul expresses the same idea about Jesus being the firstfruits of creation, where do you find such an idea of GJohn?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

The adverbial ἐν ἀρχῇ is extended to the entire first verse by ellipsis:

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ [ἐν ἀρχῇ] ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ [ἐν ἀρχῇ] θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.​

That same adverbial “in the beginning” applies to each of the phrases in the verse. Since the Logos was there in the beginning, and the Logos was with God in the beginning, then God was also there in the beginning. That just makes logical sense. It doesn’t need to be spelled out.

I agree regarding the meaning of ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως “the beginning of the creation,” though. That said, I don’t try to force the theology of the Revelation onto the other writers of the NT documents. Whereas Paul expresses the same idea about Jesus being the firstfruits of creation, where do you find such an idea of GJohn?

I'm not convinced there is ellipsis. If it were understood there is no reason to restate J 1:1a and b in verse 2.

That being said, it still does not place God "in" the beginning. I don't mean to say He did not exist but that He cannot be contained in the beginning.

That God and the Word were facing each other (προς τον θεον) does not place God in the beginning.

Interestingly, Clement of Alexandria evidently took the first clause of John 1:1 to mean that the Word became the Son (γενόμενος ο υιός) in the beginning.

He also quotes the NA punctuation.

 

[τράπεζα]

That God and the Word were facing each other (προς τον θεον) does not place God in the beginning.

It nearly nauseates me when I hear someone say that πρὸς τὸν θεόν means “facing God.” No. It means “with God” or “where God is/was.” It certainly does not mean “facing,” which is a verb (to face someone).

 

[The Real John Milton]

It nearly nauseates me when I hear someone say that πρὸς τὸν θεόν means “facing God.” No. It means “with God” or “where God is/was.” It certainly does not mean “facing,” which is a verb (to face someone).

Speaking of which, πρὸς with accusative (substantive) does not mean “with X.” It certainly does not mean “in God’s house.”

 

[Roger Thornhill]

It nearly nauseates me when I hear someone say that πρὸς τὸν θεόν means “facing God.” No. It means “with God” or “where God is/was.” It certainly does not mean “facing,” which is a verb (to face someone).

I accept that gloss. But I don't believe God can be contained in anything He created.

Here's an illustration from the movie Men in Black. The cat, Orion, had a universe on its collar. See the this picture if you don't believe me.

The cat is by, at, near and yes even in company with the Arquilian galaxy but not in it.

1 Ki 8:27 But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!

 

[The Real John Milton]

I accept that gloss. But I don't believe God can be contained in anything He created.

Here's an illustration from the movie Men in Black. The cat, Orion, had a universe on its collar. See the this picture if you don't believe me.

The cat is by, at, near and yes even in company with the Arquilian galaxy but not in it.

1 Ki 8:27 But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!

He concedes that πρὸς with accusative does not mean “with X” ( as in in company with, because it’s a grammatical no brainer)). How he tries to get around this is by suggesting that πρὸς with accusative substantive at John 1:1c is “an idiom” meaning “in God’s house,” which he then surreptitiously paraphrases as “with God.” All I can say is that when he starts calling an expression an “idiomatic use,” as he briefly tried with John 5:26 as well, watch out! 😀 He is one of the most confused self-proclaimed biblical exegetes I have ever met.

 

[τράπεζα]

He concedes that πρὸς with accusative does not mean “with X” ( as in in company with, because it’s a grammatical no brainer)).

No, it does mean “with.” I give the caveat that it means specifically “where x is” because it needs to be distinguished from μετά with genitive, σύν with dative, and παρά with dative. The need to distinguish between these terms drives me to say that πρός with accusative (when used with a verb that does not have to do with motion or speaking) means “with” in the sense of “at the person’s house” or “in the people’s city” or (in the case of God) in the heavenly realms. It still means “with.”

He is one of the most confused self-proclaimed biblical exegetes I have ever met.

Didn’t you just get done saying that ad hominem is a waste of time and gets us nowhere? This is why I go ad hominem with you—because you have zero moral worth.

 

[τράπεζα]

Just to serve as a reminder:

Stick to the discussion. Ad hominems don't help anyone.

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

If you yourself were not a usual purveyor of ad hominem attacks, I wouldn’t go there. Everyone will notice that the only person that I say anything about in regards to their rotten character is you. I am perfectly capable of disagreeing without attacking someone, but when that’s what I get, that’s what I give.

 

[τράπεζα]

All I can say is that when he starts calling an expression an “idiomatic use,” as he briefly tried with John 5:26 as well, watch out!

You hit the nail on the head. Oh, that's an idiom! You didn’t really hit a nail with a hammer, did you? You’ll find that idioms and idiomatic use of language is everywhere in the Bible—just as it is in all other literature. When διδόναι doesn’t mean to transfer possession of something, it is used idiomatically. “I gave him to read the book” obviously doesn’t mean “gave.” Jesus “gave” his disciples to understand the mysteries of the kingdom. That doesn’t mean “gave.” It means “allowed” or “granted,” and it indicates that he gave them the power to do it, the ability to do it, the understanding required to make sense of what he was telling them. It is clearly an idiom, and you don’t score points by making fun of someone for saying that something is an idiom. That’s just weird!

 

[Roger Thornhill]

It nearly nauseates me when I hear someone say that πρὸς τὸν θεόν means “facing God.” No. It means “with God” or “where God is/was.” It certainly does not mean “facing,” which is a verb (to face someone).

Mark 9:19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. Πρὸς με is a movement towards someone. It's not "with."

This is in the BDAG gloss. It's my belief that reading a relationship into προς + accusative at J 1:1 is theology. Also attempting to completely remove the basic sense of toward with no movement towards is theology.

Smyth gives:

3. πρός with the Accusative​

a. Local (direction toward or to, strictly fronting, facing): ὑ̄μᾶς ἄξομεν πρὸς αὐτούςwe will lead you to them X. A. 7.6.6, πρὸς νότον (toward the) south T. 3.6, ἰέναι πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους to go against the enemy X. A. 2.6.10.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

No, it does mean “with.” I give the caveat that it means specifically “where x is” because it needs to be distinguished from μετά with genitive, σύν with dative, and παρά with dative. The need to distinguish between these terms drives me to say that πρός with accusative (when used with a verb that does not have to do with motion or speaking) means “with” in the sense of “at the person’s house” or “in the people’s city” or (in the case of God) in the heavenly realms. It still means “with.”

But see this example where πρὸς + accusative and the stative verb είμι has movement towards. Also that being in company with is μετά and συν.

(NA28) Luke 24:29 καὶ παρεβιάσαντο αὐτὸν λέγοντες· μεῖνον μεθʼ ἡμῶν, ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπέραν ⸂ἐστὶν καὶ κέκλικεν⸃ oἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα. καὶ εἰσῆλθεν τοῦ μεῖναι σὺν αὐτοῖς.

Didn’t you just get done saying that ad hominem is a waste of time and gets us nowhere? This is why I go ad hominem with you—because you have zero moral worth.

 

[The Real John Milton]

No, it does mean “with.” I give the caveat that it means specifically “where x is” because it needs to be distinguished from μετά with genitive, σύν with dative, and παρά with dative. The need to distinguish between these terms drives me to say that πρός with accusative (when used with a verb that does not have to do with motion or speaking) means “with” in the sense of “at the person’s house” or “in the people’s city” or (in the case of God) in the heavenly realms. It still means “with.”


Didn’t you just get done saying that ad hominem is a waste of time and gets us nowhere? This is why I go ad hominem with you—because you have zero moral worth.

Do you have an example ?

 

[The Real John Milton]

You hit the nail on the head. Oh, that's an idiom! You didn’t really hit a nail with a hammer, did you? You’ll find that idioms and idiomatic use of language is everywhere in the Bible—just as it is in all other literature. When διδόναι doesn’t mean to transfer possession of something, it is used idiomatically. “I gave him to read the book” obviously doesn’t mean “gave.” Jesus “gave” his disciples to understand the mysteries of the kingdom. That doesn’t mean “gave.” It means “allowed” or “granted,” and it indicates that he gave them the power to do it, the ability to do it, the understanding required to make sense of what he was telling them. It is clearly an idiom, and you don’t score points by making fun of someone for saying that something is an idiom. That’s just weird!

Trapeza, don't you understand that "I gave him to read the book" is NOT parallel to "God gave Jesus to have life in himself" ? Here is a clue: the first uses the verb "do," the second uses the verb "have." "Gave someone to have something" is not something we normally write unless there is some extra information to be offered after the something (the substantive). Thus in John 5:26 -- "God gave Jesus to have life in himself." Had it not been for the reflexive pronoun, the apostle would simply have written "God gave life to Jesus."

 

[τράπεζα]

Mark 9:19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. Πρὸς με is a movement towards someone. It's not "with."

This is in the BDAG gloss. It's my belief that reading a relationship into προς + accusative at J 1:1 is theology. Also attempting to completely remove the basic sense of toward with no movement towards is theology.

Smyth gives:

3. πρός with the Accusative​

a. Local (direction toward or to, strictly fronting, facing): ὑ̄μᾶς ἄξομεν πρὸς αὐτούςwe will lead you to them X. A. 7.6.6, πρὸς νότον (toward the) south T. 3.6, ἰέναι πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους to go against the enemy X. A. 2.6.10.

The question is what is happening with the verb. In these three cases , all of the verbs deal with motion—φέρειν “bring, carry,” ἄγειν “bring, lead,” and ἰέναι “go.”

But see this example where πρὸς + accusative and the stative verb είμι has movement towards. Also that being in company with is μετά and συν.

(NA28) Luke 24:29 καὶ παρεβιάσαντο αὐτὸν λέγοντες· μεῖνον μεθʼ ἡμῶν, ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπέραν ⸂ἐστὶν καὶ κέκλικεν⸃ oἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα. καὶ εἰσῆλθεν τοῦ μεῖναι σὺν αὐτοῖς.

The case that you mention here, however, is not a verb of motion (εἶναι “to be”). It is in this case (verbs that do not indicate motion or speech) that the preposition takes on the meaning of “at,” “by,” or “near.” In this specific verse, πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστίν means “it is near evening.”

This is what we would expect with verbs like εἶναι “to be” and μεῖναι “to remain.” This is why I specifically said that πρὸς τὸν θεόν means “at God’s house,” since simply “at God” means little in English (though it is meaningful in both Hebrew [אֵ֫צֶל אֱלֹהִים] and in German [bei Gott]). It makes sense in Greek, too, but in English we add that it was at their house rather than at them. It means “at the place where God dwells.” It means that the Logos was in the spiritual realm, in the realm of God, in heaven... and then later it entered our world and “became flesh.”

 

[τράπεζα]

Do you have an example ?

I’ve given you examples in the past, and you’ve moved the goal posts. You aren’t interested in doing any actual learning. You just want to call everyone else ignorant. And as for me, I’m not interested in playing your games.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Also that being in company with is μετά and συν.

(NA28) Luke 24:29 καὶ παρεβιάσαντο αὐτὸν λέγοντες· μεῖνον μεθʼ ἡμῶν, ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπέραν ⸂ἐστὶν καὶ κέκλικεν⸃ oἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα. καὶ εἰσῆλθεν τοῦ μεῖναι σὺν αὐτοῖς.

Yes, a more parallel example is John 3:26

Ῥαββεί, ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου,

There are many such examples. Had apostle John meant to say that the Logos was with God, he would have written the following:

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ

or,

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν σὺν τῷ θεῷ

By the way, Trapeza harps alot about how πρός with accusative can be an idiomatic way of saying "to stay at someone's house," but it is actually παρά with dative which can denote that --

1. (+ dative)
   1. at, beside, by, near
   2. μένειν παρά τισί ― ménein pará tisí ― to stay at someone's house/home