Does God have eyes?

[cjab]

I'm not sure how you think I repudiate this, since it wasn't mentioned in what I've said here, but, for once, you are correct. Nearly all thoughts can be translated from one language to another.

You said enough times that it isn't necessary to know Greek to knew God, or that there are no advantages to knowing Greek, or words to that effect. But to rebut heresies, at least, this much is untrue. The usage of the Greek article and the Latin contempt for the article are difficult to harmonize. Similarly in respect of English, especially with the word "God" which never carries the definite article.

Then you suffer from unwillingness to accept what is written. When the text says something about Jesus/the Word being God, you try to find some way to make it refer to the Father.

Of course, because Jn 1:1c is contextual to jn 1:1b. That you deny the context is alarming.

And I was responding to your junk paraphrase. Please, show me where I have attacked you here, cjab. You keep making this false accusation so at least try to substantiate it.

"your paraphrase is trash."

You gave not a single reason why it was trash, except for you cannot read the language." That much is an ad hominen attack as I can read the language especially where I have studied it, so you'd better come up with a better excuse for your "trash talk".

 

[John Milton]

You said enough times that it isn't necessary to know Greek to knew God, or that there are no advantages to knowing Greek, or words to that effect. But to rebut heresies, at least, this much is untrue. The usage of the Greek article and the Latin contempt for the article are difficult to harmonize. Similarly in respect of English, especially with the word "God" which never carries the definite article.

I've never said there is no advantage to learning Greek. I've said it's not necessary for one to have a proper walk with God. Likewise, I never said that there aren't difficulties when translating from one language to another only that it is almost always possible to render a thought accurately into another language.

Of course, because Jn 1:1c is contextual to jn 1:1b. That you deny the context is alarming.

John 1:1 declares the Word to be God without any reference to his unity with, or dependence upon, the Father. It is for this reason that I justly called your paraphrase trash. The context of John 1 makes it clear the author is distinguishing between the Father and the Son which is the exact opposite of what your rendering is doing.

"your paraphrase is trash."

Saying that your paraphrase is trash is not a personal attack on you. It is obviously directed at your paraphrase, not you.

You gave not a single reason why it was trash, except for you cannot read the language." That much is an ad hominen attack as I can read the language especially where I have studied it, so you'd better come up with a better excuse for your "trash talk".

I said you shouldn't criticize the translation of a language you can't read, and I said that your paraphrase is trash. You have mistakenly linked two different thoughts. I hadn't given any reason for why it was trash, but I have now that you have asked (above). I should also point out your inconsistency in criticizing the rendering of a noun as an adjective when you clearly have no qualms introducing entirely foreign ideas in your proposed rendering.

 

[Caroljeen]

As far as I know, cjab hasn't said what he is until now. I believe I've mentioned to you before that I'm not aware of the distinctions between the labels Oneness/Unitarian/etc. I don't use them in a technical sense.

For my part I don't think scripture is clear enough to justify the use of ultra-precise labels to define the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If you did mention being unaware of distinctions between Oneness/Unitarian, I don't remember it. The major distinction is Oneness believe that Jesus is God incarnate, unitarians don't.

 

[John Milton]

If you did mention being unaware of distinctions between Oneness/Unitarian, I don't remember it. The major distinction is Oneness believe that Jesus is God incarnate, unitarians don't.

It's no problem. My point was that my use of the terms is/was imprecise.

 

[cjab]

I've never said there is no advantage to learning Greek. I've said it's not necessary for one to have a proper walk with God.

That presumes that you have someone to educate you as to what the Greek says. Either way, you're going to be ultimately reliant on the Greek.

The Latins made the grave mistake of rejecting the Greek for a long time and relying only on Latin. Hence the reason for the spurious johannine comma and other foibles, such as the substitution of "are one" for "are in agreement" in 1 John 5:8.

Similar issues with chinese bibles and culturally divergent languages. They are deficient in being able to convey the Greek concepts of the divine, as limited by differences in culture and language.

Likewise, I never said that there aren't difficulties when translating from one language to another only that it is almost always possible to render a thought accurately into another language.

It might take a paragraph to do it.

John 1:1 declares the Word to be God without any reference to his unity with, or dependence upon, the Father. It is for this reason that I justly called your paraphrase trash. The context of John 1 makes it clear the author is distinguishing between the Father and the Son which is the exact opposite of what your rendering is doing.

I assess your initial paraphrase as trash. And your second statement is also trash because the author is clearly associating Father and Son in a unified deity per Deut 6:4.

Saying that your paraphrase is trash is not a personal attack on you. It is obviously directed at your paraphrase, not you.

Obviouslty it's directed at me, as you can't adduce an intelligent reason for saying it.

I said you shouldn't criticize the translation of a language you can't read, and I said that your paraphrase is trash. You have mistakenly linked two different thoughts. I hadn't given any reason for why it was trash, but I have now that you have asked (above). I should also point out your inconsistency in criticizing the rendering of a noun as an adjective when you clearly have no qualms introducing entirely foreign ideas in your proposed rendering.

I regard everything you say as hogwash. I have intensively studied Jn 1:1, and I don't believe you are theologically mature enough to interpret scripture or even critique me, and you are far below the scholars I study, and do not communicate at the appropriate level: your words are hollow and affectatious.

 

[e v e 21]

Genesis 6:8
KJV But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD (ונח מצא חן בעיני יהוה)
LXX But Noe found grace before the Lord God (Νωε δὲ εὗρεν χάριν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ)

Genesis 30:27
KJV I have found favour in thine eyes (מצאתי חן בעיניך)
LXX I have found grace before thy (εὗρον χάριν ἐναντίον σου)

Genesis 34:11
KJV Let me find grace in your eyes (אמצא־חן בעיניכם)
LXX I would find grace before you (εὕροιμι χάριν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν)

Deuteronomy 13:18
KJV right in the eyes of the LORD thy God (הישר בעיני יהוה אלהיך)
LXX pleasing before the Lord thy God (τὸ ἀρεστὸν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου)

2 Chronicles 21:6
KJV evil in the eyes of the LORD (הרע בעיני יהוה)
LXX evil before the Lord (πονηρὸν ἐναντίον κυρίου)

yes He does

 

[John Milton]

That presumes that you have someone to educate you as to what the Greek says. Either way, you're going to be ultimately reliant on the Greek.

Ultimately. However, the fact remains that millions of people are able to read and understand God's word with no knowledge of Greek whatsoever.

The Latins made the grave mistake of rejecting the Greek for a long time and relying only on Latin.

Who exactly are "the Latins"?

Hence the reason for the spurious johannine comma and other foibles, such as the substitution of "are one" for "are in agreement" in 1 John 5:8.

There is nothing about these things that would prevent someone from knowing about God and how to have a proper relationship with him.

Similar issues with chinese bibles and culturally divergent languages. They are deficient in being able to convey the Greek concepts of the divine, as limited by differences in culture and language.

The possibility of poor translation does not detract from the truth of what I've said.

It might take a paragraph to do it.

It doesn't matter. It can almost always be done.

I assess your initial paraphrase as trash.

I guess the joke's on you. I wasn't offering a paraphrase.

And your second statement is also trash because the author is clearly associating Father and Son in a unified deity per Deut 6:4.

Deut. 6:4 is not mentioned or alluded to in the text. You are letting your imagination get the better of you.

Obviouslty it's directed at me, as you can't adduce an intelligent reason for saying it.

I indisputably wrote that your paraphrase is trash. Unless you are the paraphrase, you must look elsewhere for a personal attack. I have not attacked you in this thread. You are making a spectacle of yourself.

I regard everything you say as hogwash.

I can tell. You would argue with me if I said you misspelled the word "obviously".

I have intensively studied Jn 1:1, and I don't believe you are theologically mature enough to interpret scripture or even critique me, and you are far below the scholars I study, and do not communicate at the appropriate level: your words are hollow and affectatious.

Whatever you say, cjab.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Ultimately. However, the fact remains that millions of people are able to read and understand God's word with no knowledge of Greek whatsoever.

Then you are truly without excuse: since you claim to "know" Greek yet still aren't able to understand God's word.

 

[John Milton]

Then you are truly without excuse: since you claim to "know" Greek yet still aren't able to understand God's word.

Whatever you say, TRJM.

 

[Caroljeen]

I have never denied "the deity of Christ." TRJM can speak for himself.

How do you explain the deity of Christ if he is not God? What definition are you using for 'deity'?

I know that you do not believe in the trinity. You believe that Jesus proceeded/came forth from God (but he is not an emanation) nor, if I remember correctly, he is not an eternal son.

 

[cjab]

How do you explain the deity of Christ if he is not God? What definition are you using for 'deity'?

John 1:1 explains that the Word is deity without being "The God" aka the Father.

I know that you do not believe in the trinity.

There are many trinities because there are many ways of defining one. Thus John declares a trinity of witnesses in agreement in 1 John 5:7/8. A problem with "Trinitarians" is that they assume that there is only one way of defining a trinity, being the chalcedonian view, which is distinctly sabellian in conception and largely based on the views of Leo I ("The Great"), a Latin pontif. Sabellianism was espoused especially by the Romans, although it is difficult to pin down due to the original documents not surviving. But from Tertullian we can assume that it roughly entailed obviating the reality of the distinctions between the divine persona in favor of divine economies, such the NT revelation became reduced to being economic "within one God" rather than personal. The Father lost his exclusive title to being "God" whilst Jesus became dehumanized.

Tertullian sought to resurrect a precise identification of distinct divine persons with divine economies, but became criticized by the later Latin Catholics for being a subordinationist.

If you look across the globe, there are historically many ways of expressing trinity, and it is remarkable that many pagan systems also contain the idea of trinity. So the idea of trinity is one fraught with dangers, which is why it is necessary to stick with biblical terms and ideas.

You believe that Jesus proceeded/came forth from God (but he is not an emanation)

As to his humanity, yes.

As to his deity (the Word), no, because there is no such revelation to this effect

nor, if I remember correctly, he is not an eternal son.

The term "son" in the bible denotes the Son of God, and the Son of Man. Both terms denote the man, but can be extended, by inference, from his humanity to denote the eternal logos (cf. Heb 1). Yet the converse, i.e. to extend the idea of God the Son into Jesus the human son, is unscriptural. Your usage of "eternal son" equates to "God the Son" which is unknown to scripture. In fact the idea of "God the Son" is common throughout paganism; where gods beget gods. It is thus a dangerous conception in the context of Christianity, and anyone who uses the term is at risk of theological syncretism.

There is nothing more odious that to find persecution justified on the basis of refusal to concede "God the Son" as happened in the era of Calvin, which became the litmus test of "orthodoxy" and of justifying persecution of theological opponents.

 

[John Milton]

How do you explain the deity of Christ if he is not God? What definition are you using for 'deity'?

We still don't have an answer.

 

[cjab]

"Logos" is also a definition of deity. So the words "God" and "Logos" in the Greek denote deity (a significant Greek cultural distinction with respect to the English language).

 

[John Milton]

"Logos" is also a definition of deity. So the words "God" and "Logos" in the Greek denote deity (a significant Greek cultural distinction with respect to the English language).

I don't think your remark about "Logos" referring to a deity is accurate outside of the Bible and Biblical discussions. Do you have a source for your claim?...And you still haven't told us what you mean by "deity".

 

[cjab]

I don't think your remark about "Logos" referring to a deity is accurate outside of the Bible and Biblical discussions. #

If you're denying the pre-Christ concept of the Logos in Greek philosophy, you are ignorant.

Do you have a source for your claim?

Well, it depends on how far you want to go. If you want a simple reference, you could start with the encylopedia britannica:

"The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-bce philosopher Heraclitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in humans. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bce), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe, which is composed of many seminal logoi that are contained in the universal logos."

...And you still haven't told us what you mean by "deity".

uncreated to you.

 

[John Milton]

If you're denying the pre-Christ concept of the Logos in Greek philosophy, you are ignorant.

Well, it depends on how far you want to go. If you want a simple reference, you could start with the encylopedia britannica:

"The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-bce philosopher Heraclitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in humans. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bce), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe, which is composed of many seminal logoi that are contained in the universal logos."

I haven't made any specific denials, cjab. I have expressed skepticism about your claim that "Logos" is "a definition of deity". Based upon your disavowal of the phrase "God the Son," seemingly because it is not found verbatim in scripture, I would expect that you would be able to point to a Greek source that uses "Logos" in such a matter. I have a hard time believing that you can do this from Greek Philosophy, much less if I pressed you to demonstrate that this concept was commonly accepted and used by the Greeks in the manner that you have implied. However, I am confident that someone who has studied John 1:1 and Greek culture as deeply as you have won't have neglected such research until now and will be able to produce several primary sources soon.

uncreated to you.

Surely you are not implying all which is uncreated is deity?

 

[cjab]

I haven't made any specific denials, cjab. I have expressed skepticism about your claim that "Logos" is "a definition of deity". Based upon your disavowal of the phrase "God the Son," seemingly because it is not found verbatim in scripture, I would expect that you would be able to point to a Greek source that uses "Logos" in such a matter. I have a hard time believing that you can do this from Greek Philosophy, much less if I pressed you to demonstrate that this concept was commonly accepted and used by the Greeks in the manner that you have implied.

What a ridiculous proposition to suppose that the specific Logos concept of John the apostle pre-existed with the pagan Greeks. They had the idea, which was widely disseminated through several major branches of Greek philosophy, which John then re-defined as the Christian Logos.

You prove to me that the Logos idea wasn't widely known amongst the Greek elite.

However, I am confident that someone who has studied John 1:1 and Greek culture as deeply as you have won't have neglected such research until now and will be able to produce several primary sources soon.

Surely you are not implying all which is uncreated is deity?

It's up to you to show that the Logos of the Greeks was the product of a creative act i.e. other than divinity. But since you are trying to subvert and twist everything, as is your usual wont, I think I will terminate this conversation per the dicta "A companion of fools suffers harm" and "Do not give your pearls to pigs etc". I've really got much better things to do than converse with you.

 

[cjab]

All I would add is this, from Marian Hillar "From Logos to Trinity" Chp 1.

Re Stoic Logos: "But this Greek, metaphysical concept of the Logos is in sharp contrast
to a concept of a personal God typical in Hebrew thought. Everything was
determined by preexisting conditions, and it was believed that everything
that happens was the best possible result of these conditions; thus, God, the
Logos, Providence, aim at the good. This was an optimistic philosophy that
oriented life in accord with Nature and the development of virtues, that is, the
perfection of human nature, which is reason.The moral ideal thus became a
virtuous person who knows the good and acts in accord with it following the
rational order."

" The Stoic concept of the Logos can be summarized as follows:
1. Logos is the power or principle that shapes and creates all things from
itself, in the final analysis. Logos is immanent in the existing world.
2. According to Stoic metaphysics, to exist something must have body;
also, if mind were incorporeal, then it would not be capable of any
activity.
3. Logos, the power or principle that unifies and gives coherence to the
world, was metaphysically associated with the artistic, self-moving, and
generative fire by Zeno and Cleanthes, and from Chrysippus with fire
and air – pneuma. This was done through analogy with the living
creatures, which required, in accordance with the physiological theories
of the epoch, heat and breath, that is, hot breath as a vivifying agent.
Thus, pneuma became the vehicle of the Logos.
4. It is the Soul of the world, Mind of Nature, Nature, God. Nature is
an artistic or creative fire, and thus God is the seminal Logos of the
universe.
5. The pneuma, though corporeal, is not matter itself. Pneuma, unlike other
elements, pervades the universe and establishes the individual parts of
it. It gives coherence and holds together other elements, unites the
center of the universe with its circumference, and prevents the universe
from collapsing under the heavy pull of its heavy constituents (pneuma
does not have weight).
6. This principle is manifested as Natural Law, Necessity, and Destiny. It
functions at the macrocosmic and microcosmic levels as God, Providence,
Craftsman, and the “right reason” at the moral level.
7. It operates in plants, animals, and man manifested respectively as a
particular nature physis, “soul,” or “logos.” The human “soul” is thus
an “offshoot” of the divine Logos. If breath and heat are necessary
according to physiological doctrines of the epoch, then the human soul
is, according to Zeno, a “hot breath." "

And from Chp 2.


"The Hebrew Concept of davar (logos)

In the Septuagint (designated later as LXX) version of the Old Testament, the
term logos (Hebrew davar) was used frequently to describe God’s utterances
(Gen. 1:3, 6, 9; 3:9, 11; Ps. 32:9), God’s action (Zech. 5:1–4; Ps. 106:20; 147:15), or
spoken voice, and messages of prophets by means of which God communicated
his will to his people (Jer. 1:4–19; 2:1–7; Ezek. 1:3; Amos 3:1). Usually it is
expressed in the form “And God said” (καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸϚ). It is a translation from
the same Hebrew expression (...). Davar is used there as a figure of
speech designating God’s activity or action. And this is emphasized by using
the verb in the third-person singular (from the Greek λέγῶ or Hebrew rm;a').
In the ancient Near East, it was a widely spread conceptual anthropomorphic
device to express the action of a supreme divinity or a divine principle. The myth
of creation by a spoken word (logos) goes back to the First Dynasty in Egypt,
where we find such stories in the texts entitled Memphis Theology of Creation,
Hymn to Ptah, and Hymn to Ra. Here is probably the beginning of the logos
doctrine in general and especially of the Hebrew logos as it was absorbed in
the creation story. 1 The first principle, Ptah, through his thought and his words,
created or formed everything and brought it into order. Moreover, he not only
creates everything from him but also rules over the world and over humans,
rewarding or punishing them for their behavior.

This Hebrew concept of logos will be invoked in the prologue to the Fourth
Gospel. Here the Hebrew logos will be expressed substantively in the man
Jesus."

 

[John Milton]

What a ridiculous proposition to suppose that the specific Logos concept of John the apostle pre-existed with the pagan Greeks. They had the idea, which was widely disseminated through several major branches of Greek philosophy, which John then re-defined as the Christian Logos.

It is a ridiculous proposition, and you are the one who brought it into the discussion, not me.

You prove to me that the Logos idea wasn't widely known amongst the Greek elite.

Here you are trying both to move the goal posts and shift the burden of proof to me. It’s not going to work. You originally said that the Greek concept of the “Logos” as deity was established culturally now you’ve already watered that down to “widely know amongst the Greek elite”. And you’ve yet to demonstrate the truth of your earlier assertion.

It's up to you to show that the Logos of the Greeks was the product of a creative act i.e. other than divinity.

I haven’t made any claims. Why do you imagine I must prove anything? You are the one who made a claim you can’t substantiate.

But since you are trying to subvert and twist everything, as is your usual wont, I think I will terminate this conversation per the dicta "A companion of fools suffers harm" and "Do not give your pearls to pigs etc". I've really got much better things to do than converse with you.

Lol. This is something that I could truthfully say about you, but it is dishonest coming from you about me.

 

[John Milton]

All I would add is this, from Marian Hillar "From Logos to Trinity" Chp 1.

Re Stoic Logos: "But this Greek, metaphysical concept of the Logos is in sharp contrast
to a concept of a personal God typical in Hebrew thought.

This part right here supports my doubts about your position, cjab. It suggests that the Greeks did not view “logos” in the say manner that they viewed “theos” which is typically used for personal deities.

Everything was
determined by preexisting conditions, and it was believed that everything
that happens was the best possible result of these conditions; thus, God, the
Logos, Providence, aim at the good. This was an optimistic philosophy that
oriented life in accord with Nature and the development of virtues, that is, the
perfection of human nature, which is reason.The moral ideal thus became a
virtuous person who knows the good and acts in accord with it following the
rational order."

" The Stoic concept of the Logos can be summarized as follows:
1. Logos is the power or principle that shapes and creates all things from
itself, in the final analysis. Logos is immanent in the existing world.
2. According to Stoic metaphysics, to exist something must have body;
also, if mind were incorporeal, then it would not be capable of any
activity.
3. Logos, the power or principle that unifies and gives coherence to the
world, was metaphysically associated with the artistic, self-moving, and
generative fire by Zeno and Cleanthes, and from Chrysippus with fire
and air – pneuma. This was done through analogy with the living
creatures, which required, in accordance with the physiological theories
of the epoch, heat and breath, that is, hot breath as a vivifying agent.
Thus, pneuma became the vehicle of the Logos.
4. It is the Soul of the world, Mind of Nature, Nature, God. Nature is
an artistic or creative fire, and thus God is the seminal Logos of the
universe.
5. The pneuma, though corporeal, is not matter itself. Pneuma, unlike other
elements, pervades the universe and establishes the individual parts of
it. It gives coherence and holds together other elements, unites the
center of the universe with its circumference, and prevents the universe
from collapsing under the heavy pull of its heavy constituents (pneuma
does not have weight).
6. This principle is manifested as Natural Law, Necessity, and Destiny. It
functions at the macrocosmic and microcosmic levels as God, Providence,
Craftsman, and the “right reason” at the moral level.
7. It operates in plants, animals, and man manifested respectively as a
particular nature physis, “soul,” or “logos.” The human “soul” is thus
an “offshoot” of the divine Logos. If breath and heat are necessary
according to physiological doctrines of the epoch, then the human soul
is, according to Zeno, a “hot breath." "

And from Chp 2.


"The Hebrew Concept of davar (logos)

In the Septuagint (designated later as LXX) version of the Old Testament, the
term logos (Hebrew davar) was used frequently to describe God’s utterances
(Gen. 1:3, 6, 9; 3:9, 11; Ps. 32:9), God’s action (Zech. 5:1–4; Ps. 106:20; 147:15), or
spoken voice, and messages of prophets by means of which God communicated
his will to his people (Jer. 1:4–19; 2:1–7; Ezek. 1:3; Amos 3:1). Usually it is
expressed in the form “And God said” (καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸϚ). It is a translation from
the same Hebrew expression (...). Davar is used there as a figure of
speech designating God’s activity or action. And this is emphasized by using
the verb in the third-person singular (from the Greek λέγῶ or Hebrew rm;a').
In the ancient Near East, it was a widely spread conceptual anthropomorphic
device to express the action of a supreme divinity or a divine principle. The myth
of creation by a spoken word (logos) goes back to the First Dynasty in Egypt,
where we find such stories in the texts entitled Memphis Theology of Creation,
Hymn to Ptah, and Hymn to Ra. Here is probably the beginning of the logos
doctrine in general and especially of the Hebrew logos as it was absorbed in
the creation story. 1 The first principle, Ptah, through his thought and his words,
created or formed everything and brought it into order. Moreover, he not only
creates everything from him but also rules over the world and over humans,
rewarding or punishing them for their behavior.

This Hebrew concept of logos will be invoked in the prologue to the Fourth
Gospel. Here the Hebrew logos will be expressed substantively in the man
Jesus."

This is not a primary source, and none of it shows the homogeneous Greek understanding of “logos” that you claimed existed.