Dubious grammatical assertions at Carm.

Gryllus Maior

Active member
It seems you have been trying to say my view is συν and not προς.
What it boils down to is that RJM either doesn't understand range of meaning works with prepositions, and that prepositions don't always neatly fit into the charts we give beginning students to get them started. I suspect it's tendentious, that he feels he's guarding a big theological truth (big to him anyway) by his various "arguments" which deny what practically everybody (who has actually studied the language) knows.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
What it boils down to is that RJM either doesn't understand range of meaning works with prepositions, and that prepositions don't always neatly fit into the charts we give beginning students to get them started. I suspect it's tendentious, that he feels he's guarding a big theological truth (big to him anyway) by his various "arguments" which deny what practically everybody (who has actually studied the language) knows.

It's worse than that. There is no way that λόγος προς τον θεον is λόγος coming from God as spoken words or Torah.

That would be από or something similar.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Why not? Is not His word with Him?
That's a bad Buzzard argument. He takes the word "with" from some English translations where the LXX does not even use προς.

It's like the game telephone. Take a word from an English version that was translated from Hebrew and apply it to a Greek text in another book.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
That's a bad Buzzard argument. He takes the word "with" from some English translations where the LXX does not even use προς.

It's like the game telephone. Take a word from an English version that was translated from Hebrew and apply it to a Greek text in another book.

I don't care what Buzzard says. Answer the question. Is God's word not pros He Himself?

Why do you think in your head that a personal logos can be pros God but a non-personal logos cannot? Is not the logos which He gives to His people also pros Him?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I don't care what Buzzard says. Answer the question. Is God's word not pros He Himself?

Why do you think in your head that a personal logos can be pros God but a non-personal logos cannot? Is not the logos which He gives to His people also pros Him?


No scripture of which I am aware says that Gods spoken word is προς himself.

The OT references given by @The Real John Milton had Gods word προς others.

What proof do you have of this from the Bible?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Do you know of any Scripture that says God's word BECAME flesh?

And do you not know a man is what he eats and the bread of God is the word of God?


  • 14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
  • 14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

So if the bread of God is the word of God, and one consumes the bread of God by doing the word of God, do you think you can come up with how God's word as a message might have become flesh.

"My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and finish His work." 4:34

That's how the word became flesh. A man consumed the Bread of God, and a man is what he eats and what he eats becomes him.

Maybe that's why Jesus was going on and on about eating his flesh in John 6 eh?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So if the bread of God is the word of God, and one consumes the bread of God by doing the word of God, do you think you can come up with how God's word as a message might have become flesh.

"My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and finish His work." 4:34

That's how the word became flesh. A man consumed the Bread of God, and a man is what he eats and what he eats becomes him.

Maybe that's why Jesus was going on and on about eating his flesh in John 6 eh?

This is a language forum. And you have just changed the subject.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
This is a language forum. And you have just changed the subject.

No I haven't. it is pertinent to the question at hand. Or is it just you who gets to bring things up like this but nobody else can? Shall we conclude you make up the rules for yourself to get the result you want?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
In our vernacular, yes. BDAG says of J 1:14 for σαρχ "one who is or becomes a physical being, living being with flesh."
Good, so the "Logos" (apparently "the Angel Michael" ) became a human being. How do you figure that is logical ? Did this Angel become two beings, remaining an angel being and becoming a human being at the same time ?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Good, so the "Logos" (apparently "the Angel Michael" ) became a human being. How do you figure that is logical ? Did this Angel become two beings, remaining an angel being and becoming a human being at the same time ?

I'll be glad to discuss a new subject with you if you engage my question as to how you justify λόγος = Torah by exegeting Scripture and in light of the preposition chart with προς.

I have engaged the topic you bring up with Unitarians before, and am prepared to do so again.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I'll be glad to discuss a new subject with you if you engage my question as to how you justify λόγος = Torah by exegeting Scripture and in light of the preposition chart with προς.

I have engaged the topic you bring up with Unitarians before, and am prepared to do so again.

So you don't want to address that.

Next question: Look at the following clause --καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν

Does ἐσκήνωσεν refer to a human being (i.e. to the Logos become a human being) or to the pre-flesh Logos ?
 
Top