Dubious grammatical assertions at Carm.

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You are being overly literal. If I told you that someone was going to visit you and two people knocked on your door, that would be entirely consistent with how we use language.

That being said, I don't cite BDAG for proof or for their opinions. I agree that theology does infiltrate it at times.

Red above is not even the correct analogy.

Look at the English immediately following the Greek bold, since you're unable to comprehend the Greek itself without prompting πρός τινα εἶναι -- "be (in company) with someone."

So according to BDAG all of the following NT verses are declaring [for someone ] "to be (in company) with someone." However, all of the following are in fact examples of someone/ something/ some people being in the vicinity of some people, (NEVER someone)," except of course John 1:1 / 1 John 1:2 , the very verse in question and in dispute. And this is just the first among a few subtle lies in that BDAG gloss:


g. by, at, near πρός τινα εἶναι be (in company) with someone Mt 13:56; Mk 6:3; 9:19a; 14:49; Lk 9:41; J 1:1f; 1 Th 3:4; 2 Th 2:5; 3:10; 1J 1:2.

---

On the other hand, the big issue should be for you, now that λόγος cannot be anything inanimate that proceeded from God in the beginning because of προς, what will you call it now?

What's the final answer?

Nonsense.
 
Last edited:

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
You are being overly literal. If I told you that someone was going to visit you and two people knocked on your door, that would be entirely consistent with how we use language.

That being said, I don't cite BDAG for proof or for their opinions. I agree that theology does infiltrate it at times.

On the other hand, the big issue should be for you, now that λόγος cannot be anything inanimate that proceeded from God in the beginning because of προς, what will you call it now?

What's the final answer?
How about when the word of God came to be προς the prophets of old?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
How about when the word of God came to be προς the prophets of old?

That's exactly the point. God speaks his words that proceed from him. That's exactly how we expect προς to be used.

But unless you are speaking into a tape recorder and playing it back to yourself that just does not happen.

Well, the Swiss do have yodeling. ;)
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
That's exactly the point. God speaks his words that proceed from him. That's exactly how we expect προς to be used.

But unless you are speaking into a tape recorder and playing it back to yourself that just does not happen.

Well, the Swiss do have yodeling. ;)

Was the word which came to these prophets of old (1) a message, or (2) a person?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Was the word which came to these prophets of old (1) a message, or (2) a person?

That's irrelevant. Is the Word at Revelation 19:13 a person? And at J 1:14 the Word who resided with John, was he a person?

No one argues λόγος cannot mean literal words.

That's the basis for metonymy. Was Aaron literally a mouth when he spoke for Moses?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
That's irrelevant. Is the Word at Revelation 19:13 a person? And at J 1:14 the Word who resided with John, was he a person?

No one argues λόγος cannot mean literal words.

That's the basis for metonymy. Was Aaron literally a mouth when he spoke for Moses?

Not some angelic person, but a human being.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
That's irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? The word came to be προς the prophet. This language doesn't tell us the word is a person, or not a person, does it?

Is the Word at Revelation 19:13 a person?

Of course. The Word BECAME flesh.

And at J 1:14 the Word who resided with John, was he a person?

That begs the question at hand doesn't it?

No one argues λόγος cannot mean literal words.

That's the basis for metonymy. Was Aaron literally a mouth when he spoke for Moses?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Why is it irrelevant? The word came to be προς the prophet. This language doesn't tell us the word is a person, or not a person, does it?



Of course. The Word BECAME flesh.



That begs the question at hand doesn't it?

I am just establishing that λόγος is a name of the Son of God. So, what does that have to do with words God spoke in the OT?

Can you explain the logic to me?

It cannot mean that at J 1:1 because of προς.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I am just establishing that λόγος is a name of the Son of God. So, what does that have to do with words God spoke in the OT?

Can you explain the logic to me?
The προς argument seems to be YOURS.

"That's exactly the point. God speaks his words that proceed from him. That's exactly how we expect προς to be used."
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Good. In John 1:1, προς signifies that λόγος faces God.

No it doesn't. It means the logos is before God. The notion of face to face persons is from the imaginations of Trinity fantasy world.



This isn't difficult. When the word of God came to be προς Prophet X, then the word of God was προς Prophet X. This doesn't mean Person Y was with Person X.

pros is not prosopon pros prosopon.

Do your words face you?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
No it doesn't. It means the logos is before God. The notion of face to face persons is from the imaginations of Trinity fantasy world.



This isn't difficult. When the word of God came to be προς Prophet X, then the word of God was προς Prophet X. This doesn't mean Person Y was with Person X.

pros is not prosopon pros prosopon.

I have already provided the documentation for this @The Real John Milton can you explain this to him?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
No it doesn't. It means the logos is before God. The notion of face to face persons is from the imaginations of Trinity fantasy world.



This isn't difficult. When the word of God came to be προς Prophet X, then the word of God was προς Prophet X. This doesn't mean Person Y was with Person X.

pros is not prosopon pros prosopon.

Precisely.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is a name of a man, Jesus Christ. So it cannot also have been the name of a pre-existent Angel before Jesus was even born, unless ofcourse it is not the name of the real Jesus Christ. What part of "a man" is not clear ?

Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλεῖται, ἀκούσατε τοὺς λόγους τούτους· Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον, ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς δυνάμεσι καὶ τέρασι καὶ σημείοις, οἷς ἐποίησεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, καθὼς αὐτοὶ οἴδατε,
 
Top