Roger Thornhill
Well-known member
That’s a big “if.” “If” λόγος was a donkey before the Universe was created, etc....
Think like Paul. 1 Co 9:20.
That’s a big “if.” “If” λόγος was a donkey before the Universe was created, etc....
Why? John does it quite neatly, if you simply take what he says at face value.How many times does it have to be repeated? It’s insanity to argue that the Logos was with himself.
Think like Paul. 1 Co 9:20.
We're dealing with apostle John, not "Paul," and the Gospel of John was not intended just for a specific cultural audience, namely the Hellenistic.
The term λόγος is used about 311 times in the GNT (including by apostle Paul), how many times does it refer to a pre-existing Divine, non-human "person" ? Biblical words must be given biblical definitions.
Why? John does it quite neatly, if you simply take what he says at face value.
αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ.
You miss my point. Read the verse.
What could "And the Word was facing Himself" possibly mean, even if the grammar allowed for it ?You might have a point if the grammars didn't point to a more natural interpretation.
I don't think you get this from reading lots of different Greek sources.
The natural reading is to take it in a normal fashion. If it were not for theology you would see the text much differently.
That's not context, it's pretext.
You know, this is perhaps the best thing you've every said on any forum anywhere. I'll take that advice.Folks, there comes a point when one should just stop responding to the crazies (to a Herod, a Trump , etc.). I learnt this from Jesus himself:
ὅτι εἴ τις ἀκροατὴς λόγου ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ ποιητής, οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ·
Where did this "claim/rule" come from?In John 1:4 we find η ζωή ην το φως, the life was the light.
This appears to falsify the claim/rule that one can not determine the subject if both terms are articular.
@Gryllus Maior
@John Milton
@The Real John Milton
Where did this "claim/rule" come from?
I just performed a search for "Smyth" and read every post from Gryllus in the results, and I did not see him say that "that one can not determine the subject if both terms are articular." Would you please show it to me? I may have missed it.@Gryllus Maior quoted Smyth on predicate nouns having the article to identify the subject. Search on Smyth where he posted.
I just performed a search for "Smyth" and read every post from Gryllus in the results, and I did not see him say that "that one can not determine the subject if both terms are articular." Would you please show it to me? I may have missed it.
I saw that one, but he doesn't say anything there about not being able to identify subjects with two articular nouns.I paraphrased. Did you see this one?
Post in thread 'Question for Roger concerning John 1:1c'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/question-for-roger-concerning-john-1-1c.1162/post-74662
I saw that one, but he doesn't say anything there about not being able to identify subjects with two articular nouns.
I saw that one, but he doesn't say anything there about not being able to identify subjects with two articular nouns.
My point is that you, once again, appear to have falsely accused someone of saying something they have not said. In academic or legal domains, this can have serious consequences. I don't know why you think it is a trivial thing to misrepresent others.You are a known nit picker of words. If cricket has a problem with what we discussed like this he can bring it up with me.
I have no interest in having you inserted into our discussion.
Now, if you want to make an exegetical point, I am listening.
@Gryllus Maior
My point is that you, once again, appear to have falsely accused someone of saying something they have not said. In academic or legal domains, this can have serious consequences. I don't know why you think it is a trivial thing to misrepresent others.
It is not at all clear from this what he was objecting to. Besides this, the statement was made AFTER your claim, which you still have no evidence for.Here is where @Gryllus Maior takes issue with that statement.
Post in thread 'Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/pre...-and-complement-are-articular.1378/post-86480
He says "no it doesn't" to "This appears to falsify the claim/rule that one can not determine the subject if both terms are articular."