Meaning of the Definite Article

[Roger Thornhill]

Nonsense. Acts 7:50 is a quotation from the OT, Isaiah 66:1,2. which doesn't distinguish God from the Logos.

Continue reading the chapter. God here is distinguished from Jesus at His right hand. This identifies God in Acts 7:50 as the Father and therefore also in Isaiah.

In fact the God who spoke through the prophets like Isaiah in the OT is identified as the Father at Hebrews 1:1-2.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Continue reading the chapter. God here is distinguished from Jesus at His right hand. This identifies God in Acts 7:50 as the Father and therefore also in Isaiah.

In fact the God who spoke through the prophets like Isaiah in the OT is identified as the Father at Hebrews 1:1-2.

All anyone needs to understand is that the God of the OT Scriptures is the God of Jesus, Jesus Christ's God.

And his God was not a Trinity.

 

[froggy]

Froggy! Are you out of hibernation?

NO! I Croaked

 

[The Real John Milton]

Continue reading the chapter. God here is distinguished from Jesus at His right hand. This identifies God in Acts 7:50 as the Father and therefore also in Isaiah.

In fact the God who spoke through the prophets like Isaiah in the OT is identified as the Father at Hebrews 1:1-2.

I've firmly come to believe, after years of experience with Trinitarians, that our job here on earth is not to convince the vast majority of them through our posts at Carm. to come to the true God, but rather to indict them, as it were, so that they will not have any excuse before the Judgment of God.

So Trin. X might stand before God on that day and say the following, "Well, you didn't send anyone to warn us that the Trinity was wrong; if only someone helped me to see the error of my ways while I was alive, I would have believed." And God might reply thus, "But Roger Thornhill was there almost everyday trying to explain to you that the god you worshipped was an idol. Even had I sent Jesus himself to you while you were alive, you would not have believed, if you didn't believe his preaching. Begone wile and sinful person from My presence..."

 

[cjab]

Continue reading the chapter. God here is distinguished from Jesus at His right hand. This identifies God in Acts 7:50 as the Father and therefore also in Isaiah.

In fact the God who spoke through the prophets like Isaiah in the OT is identified as the Father at Hebrews 1:1-2.

True. However if you were going to go down that route without discernment, which is what you are doing, you would end up denying Jn 1:1 as incompatible with the OT, which is what the Jews do to this day, who simply reject the NT and reject Christ as a the son of God and the Word of God made flesh.

It is obvious that the OT is written without any reference to the role of the Word in creation, even if the power of the Word is sometimes alluded to. Therefore you cannot look to the OT to define the role of the Word, because the Word doesn't appear separately from God. The OT is a reference to God the Father, as the source of the Word's power and author of all things, but you cannot use it to reject the NT's casting of the role of the Word, otherwise you'd be like the Jews: a non-believer.

 

[cjab]

Different god.

For you I think, no god at all.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

True.

Yes it is.

However if you were going to go down that route without discernment, which is what you are doing,

It's what you are doing.

you would end up denying Jn 1:1 as incompatible with the OT, which is what the Jews do to this day, who simply reject the NT and reject Christ as a the son of God and the Word of God made flesh.

I see J 1:1 as perfectly compatible with the OT.

It is obvious that the OT is written without any reference to the role of the Word in creation, even if the power of the Word is sometimes alluded to.

Not at all. In Proverbs 8 22-30 the speaker (ie Word which means speaker) is the beginning of what God created (cp
Rev 3:14) and it took place in the beginning.

Therefore you cannot look to the OT to define the role of the Word, because the Word doesn't appear separately from God.

Yes he does. But not if one ignores passages like Pr 8.

The OT is a reference to God the Father, as the source of the Word's power and author of all things, but you cannot use it to reject the NT's casting of the role of the Word, otherwise you'd be like the Jews: a non-believer.

I reject your misinterpretation , not the NT.

 

[cjab]

Yes it is.





It's what you are doing.



I see J 1:1 as perfectly compatible with the OT.



Not at all. In Proverbs 8 22-30 the speaker (ie Word which means speaker) is the beginning of what God created (cp

We've been through this before. First you said Wisdom != the Word, and now you're saying they are the same thing. Rubbish. Wisdom is a spiritual quality, but an impersonal one. It only has personality in the words of the poet.

Rev 3:14) and it took place in the beginning.

Again, we've been through this before. It infers that the Word was the author of what was created in the beginning, not became created itself.

Yes he does. But not if one ignores passages like Pr 8.

Prov 8 is Old Testament. No-one has ever suggested Prov 8 is a definitive statement of the NT Logos. You're decontextualizing bible passages in a cultish way to make the bible say what you want it to say.

I reject your misinterpretation , not the NT.

You can find no support for your assertions on the Logos in the NT. None whatsoever.

 

[The Real John Milton]

We've been through this before. First you said Wisdom != the Word, and now you're saying they are the same thing. Rubbish. Wisdom is a spiritual quality, but an impersonal one. It only has personality in the words of the poet.


Again, we've been through this before. It infers that the Word was the author of what was created in the beginning, not became created itself.


Prov 8 is Old Testament. No-one has ever suggested Prov 8 is a definitive statement of the NT Logos. You're decontextualizing bible passages in a cultish way to make the bible say what you want it to say.


You can find no support for your assertions on the Logos in the NT. None whatsoever.

Can you show us a place in the GNT where the noun ὁ λόγος denotes a person rather than a thing ? This word occurs about 300 times in the GNT, and each time it refers to something not someone. By the way , Rev. 19:13 doesn't count (Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ) since it is a name given to Jesus after he had become a person, a human being, and it is not ὁ λόγος but Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (with genitive modifier).

 

[guest1]

Can you show us a place in the GNT where the noun ὁ λόγος denotes a person rather than a thing ? This word occurs about 300 times in the GNT, and each time it refers to something not someone. By the way , Rev. 19:13 doesn't count (Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ) since it is a name given to Jesus after he had become a person, a human being, and it is not ὁ λόγος but Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (with genitive modifier).

In both Prologues John and 1 John the Word is personal . Only a fool would deny those facts .

hope this helps !!!

 

[The Real John Milton]

In both Prologues John and 1 John the Word is personal .
Only a fool would deny those facts .

hope this helps !!!

Nice "argument." Want to show me an example where ὁ λόγος is ever personal in the GNT ? Verse & chapter please. You have over 300 examples.

 

[guest1]

Nice "argument." Want to show me an example where ὁ λόγος is ever personal in the GNT ? Verse & chapter please. You have over 300 examples.

I don’t need to meet any criteria since it’s spelled out for those who have been granted eyes to see in my references.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I don’t need to meet any criteria since it’s spelled out for those who have been granted eyes to see in my references.

You don't have scripture. Next..

 

[guest1]

You don't have scripture. Next..

All 66 books are in my favor and oppose your false christ.

 

[cjab]

Can you show us a place in the GNT where the noun ὁ λόγος denotes a person rather than a thing ? This word occurs about 300 times in the GNT, and each time it refers to something not someone. By the way , Rev. 19:13 doesn't count (Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ) since it is a name given to Jesus after he had become a person, a human being, and it is not ὁ λόγος but Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (with genitive modifier).

With reference to the above, combined with John 6:62 "ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον;"

πρότερον = NNS (Neuter Nominative Singular)

STRONGS
former, before
Neuter of proteros as adverb (with or without the article); previously -- before, (at the) first, former.

 

[The Real John Milton]

With reference to the above, combined with John 6:62 "ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον;"

πρότερον = NNS (Neuter Nominative Singular)

STRONGS
former, before
Neuter of proteros as adverb (with or without the article); previously -- before, (at the) first, former.

I have no idea what you’re saying.

 

[cjab]

I have no idea what you’re saying.

I am saying that the Logos personified as Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ in Revelation 19:13 can be directly mirrored to the same Logos in Jn 1:1 before the human Christ by virtue of Christ's words in John 6:62, and in particular to the use of proteros as Neuter.

You said, "Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is a name given to Jesus "after he had become a person, a human being" but it is clear that that epithet can be directly derived from Jn 1:1c also.

I can't see any plausible grounds for distinguishing Ὁ Λόγος in Jn 1:1 from Ὁ Λόγος in Rev 19:13 given Jn 6:62.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I am saying that the Logos personified as Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ in Revelation 19:13 can be directly mirrored to the same Logos in Jn 1:1 before the human Christ by virtue of Christ's words in John 6:62, and in particular to the use of proteros as Neuter.

You said, "Ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is a name given to Jesus "after he had become a person, a human being" but it is clear that that epithet can be directly derived from Jn 1:1c also.

I can't see any plausible grounds for distinguishing Ὁ Λόγος in Jn 1:1 from Ὁ Λόγος in Rev 19:13 given Jn 6:62.

It’s not even the same expression for starters, and it is applied to Jesus after he became a human being, so naturally it refers to a person there. So non-starter.

What you need is an irrefutable example from Scripture of pre-flesh Ὁ Λόγος described as a person in the bible, since this is what you are claiming Ὁ Λόγος was prior to becoming a person.

On another note , think about this — if the Λόγος was already a person , how does it make sense to say that he became a person in John 1:14 ? Did he become two people?

 

[cjab]

It’s not even the same expression for starters,

Inconsequential. That both use Ὁ Λόγος is what is important

and it is applied to Jesus after he became a human being, so naturally it refers to a person there. So non-starter.

You're refusing to address the meaning of John 6:62 which is crystal clear. Jesus returned to where he was before.

Now this is the peculiar thing with unitarians. They make a big fuss over a pre-existent Ὁ Λόγοs but seem to allow Ὁ Λόγοs that afterwards went to heaven and exercised divine authority from their. If Ὁ Λόγοs could exercise divine authority in heaven post-sonship on earth, why couldn't Ὁ Λόγοs do the same before birth? To that unitarians have no convincing answer.

What you need is an irrefutable example from Scripture of pre-flesh Ὁ Λόγος described as a person in the bible, since this is what you are claiming Ὁ Λόγος was prior to becoming a person.

Here you're on the wrong ground. First the "person" analogy is always used for convenience by God to facilitate human interaction. For God is Spirit as is Ὁ Λόγοs. Spirit is not technically a "person" (the concept of a divine person is only of limited use) and the form of God is beyond human conception anyway. All we know about the form of God is that it is Spirit and it is "life" (John 6:63). All we know about Ὁ Λόγοs in heaven is that it denotes "divine life." And so Ὁ Λόγοs isn't going to be revealed as a "person" before his birth, because in truth he isn't one: he is God (Jn 1:1c), which gives the true answer to your question.

On another note , think about this — if the Λόγος was already a person , how does it make sense to say that he became a person in John 1:14 ? Did he become two people?

It says he became flesh. I read that as Jesus' incorporeal parts (i.e. soul) came from a "kenosified" Λόγοs.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Inconsequential. That both use Ὁ Λόγος is what is important


You're refusing to address the meaning of John 6:62 which is crystal clear. Jesus returned to where he was before.

Now this is the peculiar thing with unitarians. They make a big fuss over a pre-existent Ὁ Λόγοs but seem to allow Ὁ Λόγοs that afterwards went to heaven and exercised divine authority from their. If Ὁ Λόγοs could exercise divine authority in heaven post-sonship on earth, why couldn't Ὁ Λόγοs do the same before birth? To that unitarians have no convincing answer.


Here you're on the wrong ground. First the "person" analogy is always used for convenience by God to facilitate human interaction. For God is Spirit as is Ὁ Λόγοs. Spirit is not technically a "person" (the concept of a divine person is only of limited use) and the form of God is beyond human conception anyway. All we know about the form of God is that it is Spirit and it is "life" (John 6:63). All we know about Ὁ Λόγοs in heaven is that it denotes "divine life." And so Ὁ Λόγοs isn't going to be revealed as a "person" before his birth, because in truth he isn't one: he is God (Jn 1:1c), which gives the true answer to your question.


It says he became flesh. I read that as Jesus' incorporeal parts (i.e. soul) came from a "kenosified" Λόγοs.

Just show us a place where pre-flesh Ὁ Λόγος is a person / a living being (whatever you want to call it) or hold your peace.

Verse & chapter is all I need next post.