John 1:4 ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,

[Roger Thornhill]

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.

That's only one of my points. I made it to show all the relevant texts can explicitly point to the same thing.

You did not address the point about angels being present before the Ge 1:1 creation event. In your view where John 1:1 = Ge 1:1 that remains a problem.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

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.

Yes, all things that were created by God through him. I said that before.

But that does not include the begetting of a unique deity when life came into existence in him as the instrument. I hope you saw my use of Wallace here, if not it's in the update to my paper.

I also make a point that the perfect that starts verse 4 in the Athanasius reading shows contrast.

Also, taking εν αρχή as both locative and instrumental (Athanasius said αρχή was the Father) explains how he understood the text.

 

[The Real John Milton]

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

Bold above... Not "in" but "into." And underlined above, a trickster you are, like Loki.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You sorcerer!

I agree. I should nickname him Ἰαμβρῆς.

 

[John Milton]

Yes, all things that were created by God through him. I said that before.

But that does not include the begetting of a unique deity when life came into existence in him as the instrument. I hope you saw my use of Wallace here, if not it's in the update to my paper.

I also make a point that the perfect that starts verse 4 in the Athanasius reading shows contrast.

Also, taking εν αρχή as both locative and instrumental (Athanasius said αρχή was the Father) explains how he understood the text.

The "unique begetting" refers to the Word's incarnation, so, of course, what I said does not include that.

 

[The Real John Milton]

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

It clued me into the fact that he didn't have in mind the earliest manuscripts but rather the earliest punctuated readings of the verse. Had you clarified the matter with him instead of your jumping to a false conclusion , we would have been spared so much empty noise in this thread.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The "unique begetting" refers to the Word's incarnation, so, of course, what I said does not include that.

Where are you getting “unique begetting” from ?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Where are you getting “unique begetting” from ?

It came from BDAG, maybe Bauer himself. BDAG gives all the usual ways μονογενης appears for it's occurrence at John 1:18 and one is "a uniquely begotten deity." And it says for this perspective see John 10:33-36. And according to Bauer it has the sense in John and 1 of firstborn.

So, @John Milton applies this to Jesus' birth on earth. One thing this also means is that according to Bauer John 10:33 would be "a deity" or "a god" and not "God."

Right JM?

 

[John Milton]

It came from BDAG, maybe Bauer himself. BDAG gives all the usual ways μονογενης appears for it's occurrence at John 1:18 and one is "a uniquely begotten deity." And it says for this perspective see John 10:33-36. And according to Bauer it has the sense in John and 1 of firstborn.

So, @John Milton applies this to Jesus' birth on earth. One thing this also means is that according to Bauer John 10:33 would be "a deity" or "a god" and not "God."

Right JM?

Your view is too simplistic. Jesus did not start out as a man. He became a man at birth. But at the time that John wrote he was no longer a man. He was what he had been. You have to keep these factors in mind, or you'll make mistakes like the one you made here.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Your view is too simplistic. Jesus did not start out as a man. He became a man at birth. But at the time that John wrote he was no longer a man. He was what he had been. You have to keep these factors in mind, or you'll make mistakes like the one you made here.

If you mean Bauer's "a uniquely begotten deity" that also means "firstborn" at John 10:33, it was his choice to make the term indefinite in English. It's not simplistic, it's what he said.

I don't have enough information to know if he meant being begotten on earth or in heaven. "An only-begotten deity" that is the Firstborn favors heaven in my view.

 

[John Milton]

If you mean Bauer's "a uniquely begotten deity" that also means "firstborn" at John 10:33, it was his choice to make the term indefinite in English. It's not simplistic, it's what he said.

I don't have enough information to know if he meant being begotten on earth or in heaven. "An only-begotten deity" that is the Firstborn favors heaven in my view.

I didn't realize that you were discussing a lexicon or BDAG's definitions, or I wouldn't have responded to your question. I may not respond again anyway.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I didn't realize that you were discussing a lexicon or BDAG's definitions, or I wouldn't have responded to your question. I may not respond again anyway.

Did I ask a question? The Bauer quote was just a sideline in the discussion.

The main subject is αρχή at J 1:1, Ge 1:1 and Pr 8:22.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Your view is too simplistic. Jesus did not start out as a man. He became a man at birth. But at the time that John wrote he was no longer a man. He was what he had been. You have to keep these factors in mind, or you'll make mistakes like the one you made here.

When we say X became Y, it means that Y is not what X was. Just like the water which became wine is no longer still water. If words have meaning, that is. So you can’t say he was God and man when he became a man.

 

[John Milton]

When we say X became Y, it means that Y is not what X was. Just like the water which became wine is no longer still water. If words have meaning, that is. So you can’t say he was God and man when he became a man.

Entity is not a product of function or status.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Entity is not a product of function or status.

No one is talking about function or status but of ontology. Biblical words must be given bilblical meanings. When water becomes wine it is no longer still water. When God becomes a man, he is no longer still God.

 

[The Real John Milton]

God divides beings into “kind” (genus) , so that a rock is not a donkey, nor water milk, nor man God, etc. Two different “kinds” (ontologies) can’t even reproduce, let alone be 100% of each existence at the same time. To argue otherwise is unbiblical nonsense.

καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁθεὸς τὰ κήτη τὰ μεγάλα καὶπᾶσαν ψυχὴν ζῴων ἑρπετῶνἃ ἐξήγαγεν τὰ ὕδατα κατὰ γένη αὐτῶν καὶ πᾶνπετεινὸν πτερωτὸν κατὰγένος καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτικαλά

 

[Roger Thornhill]

No one is talking about function or status but of ontology. Biblical words must be given bilblical meanings. When water becomes wine it is no longer still water. When God becomes a man, he is no longer still God.

You are correct based on Scripture and modern science. But Aristotle had a different philosophy. Everything was made of 4 elements, earth wind, fire and water.

He did not understand mixtures or alloys. A drop of wine put into a pool of water became water. But some things could not be changed.

Aristotle is the "science" in which the theory of the God-Man was based.

 

[John Milton]

You are correct based on Scripture and modern science.

Wrong on both counts.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Wrong on both counts.

It's clear that when a stone turns into a loaf of bread it not adding dough to the stone. Mt 4:3 is in the same section of BDAG as J 1:14.

BDAG γινομαι 5. to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition, become someth. a. w. nouns (Lamellae Aur. Orphicae ed. AOlivieri 1915, p. 16, 5 θεὸς ἐγένου ἐξ ἀνθρώπου [IV/III]; Arrian, Anab. 5, 26, 5; Sir 51:2; 1 Esdr 4:26; Wsd 8:2; 4 Macc 16:6; En 103:11; Tat. 19, τοῦ θανάτου καταφρονηταὶ γίνεσθε): ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν that you may become sons of your father Mt 5:45; ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων I will turn you into fishers of people Mk 1:17; a traitor Lk 6:16; friends 23:12 (cp. Jos., Ant. 11, 121); children of God J 1:12; children of light 12:36; a Christian Ac 26:29; apostle AcPlCor 2:4; a father Ro 4:18; a fool 1 Cor 3:18; a spectacle 4:9; a man, an adult 13:11 (Tob 1:9); a curse Gal 3:13. οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα he did not exalt himself to be made high priest Hb 5:5; ἐγένετο ἀντὶ αὐτοῦ Σαμουήλ Samuel became (high priest) in his place GJs 10:2. W. double nom. (Ps.-Apollod., Epit. 3, 15 δράκων λίθος ἐγένετο; Quint. Smyrn. 12, 507; Bel 28; 4 Macc 18:7) οἱ λίθοι ἄρτοι γίνονται the stones turn into loaves Mt 4:3. τὸ αἵμα αὐτοῦ λίθον γεγενημένον GJs 24:3. ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο J 1:14 (the reverse PBerl 13044, col. III, 28ff [UWilcken, SBBerlAk 1923, 161f] τί ποιῶν ἄν τις γένοιτο θεός;). τὸ ὕδωρ γενήσεται πηγή 4:14. ἡ περιτομὴ ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν Ro 2:25. ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος I became a courier Col 1:23 (cp. Herodian 2, 6, 8 ἀνὴρ ἔπαρχος γενόμενος).—Also γ. εἴς τι (Menand., Peric. 49f Kö. [169f S.] τὸ κακὸν εἰς ἀγαθὸν ῥέπει γινόμενον; 1 Km 4:9; Jdth 5:18; 1 Macc 2:11, 43; 3:58; En 19:2 al.; B-D-F §145, 1): ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον it became a tree Lk 13:19; εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17; Ac 4:11; 1 Pt 2:7 (all in ref. to Ps 117:22); εἰς χαρὰν γ. change (or, turn) into joy J16:20. εἰς οὐδέν come to nothing Ac 5:36. εἰς παγίδα Ro 11:9 (Ps 68:23); εἰς κενὸν γ. be done in vain 1 Th 3:5. εἰς ἄψινθον Rv 8:11. Cp. AcPl Ha 6, 6. Also w. γίνεσθαι omitted: εἰς κατάκριμα (sc. ἐγένετο τὸ κρίμα) Ro 5:18.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Wrong on both counts.

Nice “argument.”

The bible says man is not God. End of story.