The "gods" of John 10:34-35

You spend much time asking questions and no time answering them. Nice deflection, and and if that's how you are being guided to answer you need better help.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

It's more revealing what you don't or can't say. You have not once exegeted the text in the Nestle Aland, the one Robertson favors.
It's obviously because it leads you a conclusion that is inconsistent with what you believe.

Or, you are reading into my motives something that simply isn't there. I do not believe your punctuation is correct. Therefore, I don't care to spend the time and I am not going to spend the time balancing the different issues as to arrive at a conclusion. Such is a waste of my time as long as I don't believe it is Scripture. Your refusal to justify this reading solidifies this position all the more. If you don't care enough to argue for this punctation, I need not care enough to exegete it. Therefore, I need only to answer the absurdity of your interpretation. I have nothing against Roberson's interpretation. If you need me to pick one, I choose his. Your's is absurd, his is possible.

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.



Or, you are reading into my motives something that simply isn't there. I do not believe your punctuation is correct. Therefore, I don't care to spend the time and I am not going to spend the time balancing the different issues as to arrive at a conclusion. Such is a waste of my time as long as I don't believe it is Scripture. Your refusal to justify this reading solidifies this position all the more. If you don't care enough to argue for this punctation, I need not care enough to exegete it. Therefore, I need only to answer the absurdity of your interpretation. I have nothing against Roberson's interpretation. If you need me to pick one, I choose his. Your's is absurd, his is possible.

God Bless
Lol!

I made it clear from the beginning that I assumed the Nestle Aland punctuation was correct. So it does not matter what you believe personally. That's not my challenge to Trinitarians.

The challenge is to present a Trinitarian view that is grammatical and presents "What came to be in him was life" with both grammatical parallels and lexical parallels.

I've done this for my view. I have even shown that some ECF had similar views like Clement of Alexandria.

Perhaps you are not capable of doing this on behalf of Trinitarians and that's fine if you are not. That's because I think any attempt would betray weaknesses.

So be it. I'll look elsewhere.
 
Lol!

I made it clear from the beginning that I assumed the Nestle Aland punctuation was correct. So it does not matter what you believe personally. That's not my challenge to Trinitarians.

Why would anyone think that their personal assumption is relevant at all to whether or not someone else is motivated to do something? What part of "If you need me to pick one, I choose his. Your's is absurd, his is possible." didn't you understand?

The challenge is to present a Trinitarian view that is grammatical and presents "What came to be in him was life" with both grammatical parallels and lexical parallels.

What makes you think I took up this challenge? I am simply pointing out how absurd your interpretation is assuming your punctuation.

I've done this for my view.

And, it has been found wanting.

I have even shown that some ECF had similar views like Clement of Alexandria.

You've made this claim. That doesn't mean you actually showed any ECF thought John 1:3-4 teaches God created Jesus. Historically, what you call "similar views" ends up being radically different in almost every way.

Perhaps you are not capable of doing this on behalf of Trinitarians and that's fine if you are not. That's because I think any attempt would betray weaknesses.

So be it. I'll look elsewhere.

Maybe you should learn to read: I don't care to spend the time and I am not going to spend the time balancing the different issues as to arrive at a conclusion. Such is a waste of my time as long as I don't believe it is Scripture. Your refusal to justify this reading solidifies this position all the more. If you don't care enough to argue for this punctation, I need not care enough to exegete it. Therefore, I need only to answer the absurdity of your interpretation. I have nothing against Roberson's interpretation. If you need me to pick one, I choose his. Your's is absurd, his is possible.

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Maybe you should learn to read: I don't care to spend the time and I am not going to spend the time balancing the different issues as to arrive at a conclusion. Such is a waste of my time as long as I don't believe it is Scripture. Your refusal to justify this reading solidifies this position all the more. If you don't care enough to argue for this punctation, I need not care enough to exegete it. Therefore, I need only to answer the absurdity of your interpretation. I have nothing against Roberson's interpretation. If you need me to pick one, I choose his. Your's is absurd, his is possible.

God Bless
Lol! You are continuing to demonstrate that you do have the time.

As for Robertson, he interprets John 1:4 based on 5:26. He says "he has bestowed this power of life to the Son as already stated in the Prologue of the Logos (1:3)."

But John 1:3-4 says nothing about bestowing the power of life to the Word. He thus interprets 1:4 from 5:26. That's from John 5:19-26. J 5:26 is grammatically linked to the resurrection in 5:25.

J 1:1-4 is to early to be about the resurrection and it sounds like a very low Christology to be given the power of life in the beginning of the prologue. Most Trinitarians say the Word created life in the prologue. Anyone who creates life can resurrect.



--
Robertson's Word Pictures

Joh 5:26 - In himself (en heautôi). The Living God possesses life wholly in himself and so he has bestowed this power of life to the Son as already stated in the Prologue of the Logos (1:3). For "gave" (edôken, timeless aorist active indicative) see also 3:35; 17:2,24. The particles "as" (hôsper) and "so" (houtôs) mark here the fact, not the degree (Westcott).
 
Maybe you should learn to read: I don't care to spend the time and I am not going to spend the time balancing the different issues as to arrive at a conclusion. Such is a waste of my time as long as I don't believe it is Scripture. Your refusal to justify this reading solidifies this position all the more. If you don't care enough to argue for this punctation, I need not care enough to exegete it. Therefore, I need only to answer the absurdity of your interpretation. I have nothing against Roberson's interpretation. If you need me to pick one, I choose his. Your's is absurd, his is possible.
Lol! You are continuing to demonstrate that you do have the time.

You can't tell the difference between caring to spend time and having the time?

As for Robertson, he interprets John 1:4 based on 5:26. He says "he has bestowed this power of life to the Son as already stated in the Prologue of the Logos (1:3).
"But John 1:3-4 says nothing about bestowing the power of life to the Word. He thus interprets 1:4 from 5:26. That's from John 5:19-26. J 5:26 is grammatically linked to the resurrection in 5:25.


There you go reading things backwards again. John 5:26 doesn't mention this power of life either. The power part is not from either passage. It's just his way of making sense of what is being said. Therefore, he is not using John 5:26 to interpret 1:4 like you do.

J 1:1-4 is to early to be about the resurrection and it sounds like a very low Christology to be given the power of life in the beginning of the prologue. Most Trinitarians say the Word created life in the prologue. Anyone who creates life can resurrect.
--
Robertson's Word Pictures

Joh 5:26 - In himself (en heautôi). The Living God possesses life wholly in himself and so he has bestowed this power of life to the Son as already stated in the Prologue of the Logos (1:3). For "gave" (edôken, timeless aorist active indicative) see also 3:35; 17:2,24. The particles "as" (hôsper) and "so" (houtôs) mark here the fact, not the degree (Westcott).

Why are you limiting this "power of life" to the resurrection?

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member

There you go reading things backwards again. John 5:26 doesn't mention this power of life either. The power part is not from either passage. It's just his way of making sense of what is being said. Therefore, he is not using John 5:26 to interpret 1:4 like you do.
The discourse starts up at J 5:19 where Jesus says he is not capable of doing anything "of himself." He uses the Greek word δυνάμαι, " to possess capability (whether because of personal or external factors) for experiencing or doing someth., can, am able, be capable." (BDAG)

While word sense is from usage not etymology, the root is δυναμις which is "power, might, strength, capability." Dynamite comes from this word.

So Robertson may have had this in mind.
 
The postpositive γαρ that begins verse 26 grammatically ties verse 26 to verse 25 as the cause, reason or clarification of 25.

I don't disagree, but I'm asking why you are limiting this power of life in Roberson's comments when he is seeing it more holistically?

There you go reading things backwards again. John 5:26 doesn't mention this power of life either. The power part is not from either passage. It's just his way of making sense of what is being said. Therefore, he is not using John 5:26 to interpret 1:4 like you do.
The discourse starts up at J 5:19 where Jesus says he is not capable of doing anything "of himself." He uses the Greek word δυνάμαι, " to possess capability (whether because of personal or external factors) for experiencing or doing someth., can, am able, be capable." (BDAG)

While word sense is from usage not etymology, the root is δυναμις which is "power, might, strength, capability." Dynamite comes from this word.

So Robertson may have had this in mind.

Are you a Psychic? You're literally okay reading the mind of someone who died almost 100 years ago? Why don't you stick with the what Roberson wrote as to understand what Roberson was saying?

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I don't disagree, but I'm asking why you are limiting this power of life in Roberson's comments when he is seeing it more holistically?

I said I disagreed with Robertson because it's not in the text. I am making a purely grammatical argument both at J 5:26 and J 1:4 independently of each other. I use the only lexical sense for "life" that is in BDAG, not metaphorical nonsense.

Are you a Psychic? You're literally okay reading the mind of someone who died almost 100 years ago? Why don't you stick with the what Roberson wrote as to understand what Roberson was saying?

God Bless

I see a textual reason why Robertson might see it as power of life. It's in the word δυναμαι.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
The discourse starts up at J 5:19 where Jesus says he is not capable of doing anything "of himself." He uses the Greek word δυνάμαι, " to possess capability (whether because of personal or external factors) for experiencing or doing someth., can, am able, be capable." (BDAG)

While word sense is from usage not etymology, the root is δυναμις which is "power, might, strength, capability." Dynamite comes from this word.

So Robertson may have had this in mind.
Jesus says "The Son does nothing of Himself" at John 5:19.
The word capable appears in NO Bible version on earth.
More Thornhill fiction, I presume.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Jesus says "The Son does nothing of Himself" at John 5:19.
The word capable appears in NO Bible version on earth.
More Thornhill fiction, I presume.
There is no version that reads like your self-serving paraphrase. None say "does nothing" as if he could do it but chooses not to. Here is a link to bible hub that proves this is the case.

Most have something like "can do nothing of himself."

Most competent native English speakers understand that "can do nothing" and "not capable of" have the same sense as BDAG indicates. Your beef is with them, not me.

Don't shoot the messenger.
 
Last edited:

johnny guitar

Well-known member
There is no version that reads like your self-serving paraphrase. None say "does nothing" as if he could do it but chooses not to. Here is a link to bible hub that proves this is the case.

Most have something like "can do nothing of himself."

Most competent native English speakers understand that "can do nothing" and "not capable of" have the same sense as BDAG indicates. Your beef is with them, not me.

Don't shoot the messenger.
The Son does nothing of Himself because He ALWAYS works TOGETHER with The Father.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The Son does nothing of Himself because He ALWAYS works TOGETHER with The Father.
Thanks for your opinion but John 5:19 says "The Son can do nothing of himself."

The word you are omitting, can, is the Greek word δύναμαι that BDAG says also means capable. The fact that you omit this word from your inaccurate paraphrase is proof your understanding does not reflect what Jesus actually said at John 5:19
 
Last edited:

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Thanks for your opinion but John 5:19 says "The Son can do nothing of himself."

The word you are omitting, can, is the Greek word δύναμαι that BDAG says also means capable. The fact that you omit this word from your inaccurate paraphrase is proof your understanding does not reflect what Jesus actually said at John 5:19
Since The Father and Son ALWAYS work together, NEITHER can do anything of Himself.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Since The Father and Son ALWAYS work together, NEITHER can do anything of Himself.
According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) YHWH says He does things "of myself" at Isaiah 44:24 and that this is the equivalent of the Greek of John 5 ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ.

So Jesus says he does nothing "of himself" at John 5:9,30 but YHWH says he does things that way. So this also proves that Jesus is not YHWH.

--
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB), 951 אֵת(page 87) (Strong 854) ... c. expressing origination: ... Is 44:24 Qr מֵאִתִּי of myself (cf. ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ John 5:30; Kt is מִי אִתִּי who was with me?), 54:15 אֶפֶס מֵאוֹתִי not at my instance (cf. לֹא מִנִּי30:1, לֹא מִמֶּנִּי Ho 8:4).
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) YHWH says He does things "of myself" at Isaiah 44:24 and that this is the equivalent of the Greek of John 5 ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ.

So Jesus says he does nothing "of himself" at John 5:9,30 but YHWH says he does things that way. So this also proves that Jesus is not YHWH.

--
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB), 951 אֵת(page 87) (Strong 854) ... c. expressing origination: ... Is 44:24 Qr מֵאִתִּי of myself (cf. ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ John 5:30; Kt is מִי אִתִּי who was with me?), 54:15 אֶפֶס מֵאוֹתִי not at my instance (cf. לֹא מִנִּי30:1, לֹא מִמֶּנִּי Ho 8:4).
Indeed, God ALWAYS does things of/by Himself.
The Father does NOT. Neither does The Son.
 
I said I disagreed with Robertson because it's not in the text.

Then, why don't you disagree with yourself all the more? Jesus personal life isn't expressed in John 1:4 or 5:26 either. Worse than that, seeing it as Jesus' personal life would directly contract "without him was not anything made."

I am making a purely grammatical argument both at J 5:26 and J 1:4 independently of each other. I use the only lexical sense for "life" that is in BDAG, not metaphorical nonsense.

  • "Purely grammatical"? ROFL Are you serious about this? You haven't presented a single grammatical argument in this thread. That doesn't make your argument right or wrong; it's just utter silliness to call it grammatical, let alone purely grammatical.
  • "Independently"? Then why do you keep on bringing up John 5:26 when that verse is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. You even admitted that John 5:26 is about the resurrection; and therefore not relevant at all to whether Jesus is created or God.
  • "lexical sense for "life" that is in BDAG"? Really? John 1:4 and 5:26 are lexicographically under transcendent life, not the personal life your cramming into the text. In fact, I believe Roberson even noted that in John ζωὴ is never used of one's personal life, but it is always used of eternal life relating to salvation or as transcendent life only associated with being God. Therefore, not only are you not using the lexical sense for "life" that is in BDAG, the Book of John never, ever uses the definition you're trying to force into this context.

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Then, why don't you disagree with yourself all the more? Jesus personal life isn't expressed in John 1:4 or 5:26 either. Worse than that, seeing it as Jesus' personal life would directly contract "without him was not anything made."

What are you talking about? The life in Jesus is not his life? Whose is it?
"Purely grammatical"? ROFL Are you serious about this? You haven't presented a single grammatical argument in this thread. That doesn't make your argument right or wrong; it's just utter silliness to call it grammatical, let alone purely grammatical.

I have provided the link to my paper in this thread. It's written down and public. I have used some is the same analysis in this thread.

  • "Independently"? Then why do you keep on bringing up John 5:26 when that verse is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. You even admitted that John 5:26 is about the resurrection; and therefore not relevant at all to whether Jesus is created or God.

John 5:26 is not irrelevant. Verses 19-26 establish the fact that the Father gives the Son "divine revelation" (BDAG) when he shows him how to use his personal life to resurrect the dead. The life "in himself" is not someone else's life. That's just weird. He's not pregnant as you inferred before in your analogy

  • "lexical sense for "life" that is in BDAG"? Really? John 1:4 and 5:26 are lexicographically under transcendent life, not the personal life your cramming into the text.

Where do you get the notion that transcendent life is not the personal life of a transcendent being? It's not from BDAG.



  • In fact, I believe Roberson even noted that in John ζωὴ is never used of one's personal life, but it is always used of eternal life relating to salvation or as transcendent life only associated with being God.

You believe? Why appeal to some vague notion of which you are unsure from someone neither of us views as authoritative?

What does "relating to salvation" mean? That's rhetorical nonsense.

  • Therefore, not only are you not using the lexical sense for "life" that is in BDAG, the Book of John never, ever uses the definition you're trying to force into this context.

Nonsense. If the noun ζωή has an adjective like eternal it's still life. The adjective represents a particular attribute of that life. Eternal life is life that does not end. It's still life.

When Jesus has life in himself its still life. But his life has the capability of being used to resurrect the dead.



God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Indeed, God ALWAYS does things of/by Himself.
The Father does NOT. Neither does The Son.
That's not what BDB says. The phrase is "of origination." The Greek uses a preposition that means origination, από (from). The same concept is at 1 Co 8:6 where all things originate with the Father using εκ (from) and through the Son with δια.

So all things do originate with the Father. No things originate with the Son.

Since God at Isaiah 44:24 is originating all things, He is described as doing what Paul says the Father does at 1 Co 8:6a and what Jesus says he cannot do at John 5:19 and 30.

So Jesus is not YHWH at Isaiah 44:24, it can only be the Father.

In fact Isaiah 44:24 is only referring to what the Father did. That does not mean he did not use an agent during that process.

Look at verse 28. He used Cyrus as his agent to restore Jerusalem but he alone was the cause or origination.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Then, why don't you disagree with yourself all the more? Jesus personal life isn't expressed in John 1:4 or 5:26 either. Worse than that, seeing it as Jesus' personal life would directly contract "without him was not anything made."

There are two phrases with two different agencies, things that came into existence through him and one thing that came into existence in him. They are not the same thing. I don't believe you think they are exactly the same thing either.

All things came into existence through him and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

What came into existence in him was life.

Both of these phrases is an example of Asyndeton. They are contrasted with each other. I have an entire section in my paper on this.

So the "all things" that came into existence through the Word does not include the life that came into existence in him.

My analogy:

All human beings came into existence through Adam and apart from him not even one human being came into existence.

What came into existence in Adam was human life when God breathed life into him.
 
Top