John 1:4 ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,

[Roger Thornhill]

What's interesting about the Word existing before becoming human? That's exactly what scripture says. The Word and Jesus are the same.

What's interesting is that when you said:

The Word was certainly a uniquely begotten deity: the only deity to ever be born as a man.

you are equating μονογενης θεος with born as a man at John 1:18.

I would have expected that from a Unitarian.

 

[John Milton]

I said:
The earliest Greek as opposed to the reading that first appears in the 4th century has "What came into existence/was made/was created in him was life."

Obviously I was referring to Greek that was punctuated like what appeared in the 4th century in this list.

You are being intentionally deceptive when you imply that the early texts punctuation. You got caught. Own your mistake. Stop sniveling.

 

[John Milton]

What's interesting is that when you said:

The Word was certainly a uniquely begotten deity: the only deity to ever be born as a man.

you are equating μονογενης θεος with born as a man at John 1:18.

I would have expected that from a Unitarian.

Entity is not a product of function or status.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You are being intentionally deceptive when you imply that the early texts punctuation. You got caught. Own your mistake. Stop sniveling.

He was referring to the earliest Greek which was punctuated. The problem here is with your poor English reading and writing skills.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Good grief, there is no 8 case system. It was popular for a while with a few 20th century scholars taken up with Sanskrit, but what we actually have is four functional cases with a variety of uses. No modern grammar uses or endorses any 8 case system, and Wallace should really know better.

Would you like to address my two, topic related questions or continue to say “good grief” to things not relevant to this thread . It’s a form of trolling.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You are being intentionally deceptive when you imply that the early texts punctuation. You got caught. Own your mistake. Stop sniveling.

What do you mean by the "that the early texts punctuation."?

That does not appear to be coherent English.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

No, "grammatically" it cannot mean both. ἐν ἀρχῇ is a simple temporal reference and a clear allusion to Gen 1:1.

I never understood how that stock answer could be justified.

Since the angels were present for the beginning at Genesis 1:2 (Cp. Job 38:4,6) all of them would be present at that time.

There is a creation event (Cp. 8:22 LXX) that precedes this:

Pr 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

I think this presents a higher Christology than having someone present merely when the earth is created as this text clearly places someone who was just "brought forth" beforehand.

And that creation event before the earth is called the beginning at Pr 8:22, "the beginning of his way, before his works of old."

If John 1:1 starts "in" the beginning, at the time the earth was created at Ge 1:1 that is after this.

 

[John Milton]

What do you mean by the "that the early texts punctuation."?

That does not appear to be coherent English.

*had* punctuation. But you knew that.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

I never understood how that stock answer could be justified.

Since the angels were present for the beginning at Genesis 1:2 (Cp. Job 38:4,6) all of them would be present at that time.

There is a creation event (Cp. 8:22 LXX) that precedes this:

Pr 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

I think this presents a higher Christology than having someone present merely when the earth is created as this text clearly places someone who was just "brought forth" beforehand.

And that creation event before the earth is called the beginning at Pr 8:22, "the beginning of his way, before his works of old."

If John 1:1 starts "in" the beginning, at the time the earth was created at Ge 1:1 that is after this.

I really don't want to get sucked into your theological quagmires. Prov 8:22-24 is a reference to wisdom, and beware of making it a direct Christological reference. Job 38:4-6 only states that angels were present, not when they were created. I am not convinced at all by the "two creation argument, particularly in the light of the comprehensiveness of the creation event as described in the NT, e.g., Col 1:15-20.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I really don't want to get sucked into your theological quagmires. Prov 8:22-24 is a reference to wisdom, and beware of making it a direct Christological reference.

My point was that someone was created and was present before the creation of the earth in Proverbs 8. I said higher Christology because that identifies someone before the Logos in J 1:1. You didn't take issue with my timeline and that was my main point.

Job 38:4-6 only states that angels were present, not when they were created.

I never said when they were created. I said they would have been present in the beginning when the earth was created.

If you are inferring that they could have been created in the beginning before the earth was created that flys in the face of @John Milton who is adamant that there can be no creation event before J 1:3.

I am not convinced at all by the "two creation argument, particularly in the light of the comprehensiveness of the creation event as described in the NT, e.g., Col 1:15-20.

I don't see a difference. There are two agencies in that verse as well, things through and things in Christ.

The reference to him being a firstborn image in 15 suggests a beginning for him before this. I don't see it being comprehensive than J 1:1. What do you mean by that?

I ask because BDAG calls this the new creation.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

*had* punctuation. But you knew that.

If you are saying that the oldest manuscripts had punctuation you are dead wrong unless you mean the oldest that have punctuation like I did.

But I knew that.

 

[John Milton]

If you are saying that the oldest manuscripts had punctuation you are dead wrong unless you mean the oldest that have punctuation like I did.

But I knew that.

I did know what you were doing, and I called you on it. You consciously withheld the truth. You knew the truth (the earliest manuscripts have no punctuation) and yet you said...

The earliest Greek as opposed to the reading that first appears in the 4th century has "What came into existence/was made/was created in him was life."

 

[Gryllus Maior]

My point was that someone was created and was present before the creation of the earth in Proverbs 8. I said higher Christology because that identifies someone before the Logos in J 1:1. You didn't take issue with my timeline and that was my main point.





I never said when they were created. I said they would have been present in the beginning when the earth was created.

If you are inferring that they could have been created in the beginning before the earth was created that flys in the face of @John Milton who is adamant that there can be no creation event before J 1:3.



I don't see a difference. There are two agencies in that verse as well, things through and things in Christ.

The reference to him being a firstborn image in 15 suggests a beginning for him before this. I don't see it being comprehensive than J 1:1. What do you mean by that?

I ask because BDAG calls this the new creation.

The main subject of Prov 8 is wisdom, חָכְמָה. It's a quality of God personified in a wonderful poetic description, but is not directly analogous to the Logos. As such, of course it existed prior to creation, and can be described in the active sense of being "brought forth" or "possessed" קָנָנִי as God applies his wisdom to his various acts, including creation. BTW, none of this distraction of yours changes what "In the beginning" means at John 1:1.

 

[John Milton]

My point was that someone was created and was present before the creation of the earth in Proverbs 8. I said higher Christology because that identifies someone before the Logos in J 1:1. You didn't take issue with my timeline and that was my main point.

Well and good, but it doesn't contradict John 1. There creation is viewed as a single event, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a process. There is nothing in John 1 that prohibits angels or stars or whatever being created thousands of years before earth and the things in in. The things that matter most are that, however long the process, the Word proceeded his creation and brought all things into existence. If you deny those two things, you don't understand what John wrote.

 

[The Real John Milton]

If you are saying that the oldest manuscripts had punctuation you are dead wrong unless you mean the oldest that have punctuation like I did.

But I knew that.

He is either pretending to not know what you meant, or else his reading comprehension is poor. After having followed his posts for some time, I’m inclined to the latter view.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I did know what you were doing, and I called you on it. You consciously withheld the truth. You knew the truth (the earliest manuscripts have no punctuation) and yet you said...

He doesn’t say “the earliest Greek manuscripts….”

 

[The Real John Milton]

The main subject of Prov 8 is wisdom, חָכְמָה. It's a quality of God personified in a wonderful poetic description, but is not directly analogous to the Logos. As such, of course it existed prior to creation, and can be described in the active sense of being "brought forth" or "possessed" קָנָנִי as God applies his wisdom to his various acts, including creation. BTW, none of this distraction of yours changes what "In the beginning" means at John 1:1.

Now substitute “Wisdom” for “Logos” above and you have perfect concord with pre-flesh Logos as described in the OT. How can you see the one half but not the other ?

 

[John Milton]

He doesn’t say “the earliest Greek manuscripts….”

Oh, well, THAT makes it okay, doesn't it?

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Now substitute “Wisdom” for “Logos” above and you have perfect concord with pre-flesh Logos as described in the OT. How can you see the one half but not the other ?

Because I've mastered the trick of reading in context and appropriate genre identification.

 

[John Milton]

Because I've mastered the trick of reading in context and appropriate genre identification.

You sorcerer!