The "gods" of John 10:34-35

johnny guitar

Well-known member
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.
Isaiah 44:24 is NOT referring to any specific Person.
At John 5:19 Jesus says He NEVER works independently of The Father.
BTW Jesus is The SON of The Father, NOT an agent.
The Father and Son are ONE. John 10:30.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Isaiah 44:24 is NOT referring to any specific Person.

Of course it is. First of all He refers to Himself with the first person personal pronoun "I" so He is one person. He also claims to do something that the Son says he never does. Add to that Paul's description of the Father at 1 Co 8:6 as the one FROM whom all things came to be, and it cannot be anyone else.

It's simple irrefutable logic.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
At John 5:19 Jesus says He NEVER works independently of The Father.

That's not what it says and that's not what it means. You saw BDB, now here is BDAG:


e. to indicate responsible agents for someth., from, of
α. the self, st. Gk. usage (Thu. 5, 60, 1; X., Mem. 2, 10, 3; Andoc., Orat. 2, 4 οὗτοι οὐκ ἀφ᾿αὑτῶν ταῦτα πράττουσιν; Diod. S. 17, 56; Num 16:28; 4 Macc 11:3; En 98:4; TestAbr A 15 p. 95, 26 [Stone p. 38]; 18 p. 101, 6 [Stone p. 50]; Just., A I, 43, 8) the expr. ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ (pl. ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν) of himself and ἀπ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ are common Lk 12:57; 21:30; 2 Cor 3:5, esp. so in J: 5:19, 30; 8:28; 10:18; 15:4. —7:17f; 11:51; 14:10; 16:13; 18:34. So also ἀπ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλήλυθα I did not come of myself (opp. the Father sent me) 7:28; 8:42.

You are demeaning the role of the Father.

He's your Father too. Why would you do that? Jesus is your brother, not your Father.
 
Last edited:

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Of course it is. First of all He refers to Himself with the first person personal pronoun "I" so He is one person. He also claims to do something that the Son says he never does. Add to that Paul's description of the Father at 1 Co 8:6 as the one FROM whom all things came to be, and it cannot be anyone else.

It's simple irrefutable logic.
So He is one Being.
The Son says He never works INDEPENDENTLY of The Father.
ALL things are OF The Father BY The Son. They are ONE.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
That's not what it says and that's not what it means. You saw BDB, now here is BDAG:


e. to indicate responsible agents for someth., from, of
α. the self, st. Gk. usage (Thu. 5, 60, 1; X., Mem. 2, 10, 3; Andoc., Orat. 2, 4 οὗτοι οὐκ ἀφ᾿αὑτῶν ταῦτα πράττουσιν; Diod. S. 17, 56; Num 16:28; 4 Macc 11:3; En 98:4; TestAbr A 15 p. 95, 26 [Stone p. 38]; 18 p. 101, 6 [Stone p. 50]; Just., A I, 43, 8) the expr. ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ (pl. ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν) of himself and ἀπ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ are common Lk 12:57; 21:30; 2 Cor 3:5, esp. so in J: 5:19, 30; 8:28; 10:18; 15:4. —7:17f; 11:51; 14:10; 16:13; 18:34. So also ἀπ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλήλυθα I did not come of myself (opp. the Father sent me) 7:28; 8:42.

You are demeaning the role of the Father.

He's your Father too. Why would you do that? Jesus is your brother, not your Father.
I am EXALTING the role of The Son who ALWAYS works together with The Father.
Jesus is my SAVIOR and Lord.
 
Then, why don't you disagree with yourself all the more?...
What are you talking about? The life in Jesus is not his life? Whose is it?

Nothing in the text says the life in Jesus was his own life. You added it. It's transcendent life; that which makes life life.

"Purely grammatical"? ROFL Are you serious about this? You haven't presented a single grammatical argument in this thread.
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.

Links are not a presentation of an argument.

"Independently"? Then why do you keep on bringing up John 5:26...
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.

John 5:26 has nothing to do with John 1:3-4. Again, why are you bringing it up if you interpret them independently? You claim independence and then argue that John 1:4 sould be interpreted in light of John 5:26. Hello? That's the opposite of independent interpretation. Besides, nothing in the text says anything about using "his personal life to resurrect the dead." You have no textual reason to think "life in himself" is his own or someone else life. Stop projecting the personal life definition in where it doesn't apply. John doesn't use ζωὴ that way in his gospel.

He's not pregnant as you inferred before in your analogy

Do you really think slandering me over and over again with this falsehood is helpful?

"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.

From the use of the word transcendent applied to life. BDAG is refereeing to life as transcendent, not the person as transcendent.

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?

Nice job twisting my words. I don't have Roberson in front of me. You're the one who quoted Robertson. Did you read what you quoted?

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

Are you joking? How many times does Jesus talk about believing in him and gaining life abundant, aka salvation? He only uses it 30 some on times this way in John's gospel alone. Don't get me started on his epistles. You knew what I meant and are just nitpicking, or you never bothered to sit down and read the book of John.

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.

Claiming it is nonsense while denying the obvious difference in use is outrageous. In John, living people either have life, aka are saved, or they do not have life, aka not saved. That's the dichotomy John/Jesus uses throughout the gospel. To ignore this use and pretend it is just being alive is beyond absurdity.

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.

Again, v3 states "without him was not anything made." Therefore, whether it came into being in him or outside of him, "without him was not anything made." Or to put it another way, nothing came into existence at all without him. Therefore, your "one thing that came into existence in him" couldn't have been his own personal life. That would be a direct contradiction.

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.

So you admit to writing an entire section of your paper trying to justify a blatant contradiction? Wow, life must be hard when you spend your time justifying contradictions. You might as well admit 2 = 3.

FYI, John 1 does not say anything like
"apart from him" to allow you to pretend Jesus was the only exception for things that were made without him.

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So He is one Being.
The Son says He never works INDEPENDENTLY of The Father.
ALL things are OF The Father BY The Son. They are ONE.
Beings don't talk, only people do.

If the Father talks and the Son talks and the Holy Spirit talks and the Being talks that's 4 talking. That's a quaternity not a Trinity.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So you admit to writing an entire section of your paper trying to justify a blatant contradiction? Wow, life must be hard when you spend your time justifying contradictions. You might as well admit 2 = 3.

That's not a response to this grammatical argument:


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.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
What does "relating to salvation" mean? That's rhetorical nonsense.

Are you joking? How many times does Jesus talk about believing in him and gaining life abundant, aka salvation? He only uses it 30 some on times this way in John's gospel alone. Don't get me started on his epistles. You knew what I meant and are just nitpicking, or you never bothered to sit down and read the book of John.

Eating too much food is related to weight gain. That does not mean food is weight gain.

The fact remains that the term eternal life is still life. The life one gets for salvation is still life.

You've been defeated and everyone who reads your responses that are designed to deflect instead of address can see it plainly.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
FYI, John 1 does not say anything like "apart from him" to allow you to pretend Jesus was the only exception for things that were made without him.

God Bless

Here is my Expository Rendering. I don't claim it's the only possible rendering but I do claim it's based on solid grammatical and linguistic principles.


John 1:2-4

This one was with God in the beginning.

All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else.

But what was made in him was life and his life was the light of men.
 
So you admit to writing an entire section of your paper trying to justify a blatant contradiction? Wow, life must be hard when you spend your time justifying contradictions. You might as well admit 2 = 3.
That's not a response to this grammatical argument:
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.

This is not a grammatical argument; it's a literary argument. Grammatical arguments relate to the Greek grammar involved in the Text. I doubt you've ever read a grammatical argument given this response. BTW, You're still trying to justify a blatant contradiction? You might as well admit 2 = 3.

Are you joking? How many times does Jesus talk about believing in him and gaining life abundant, aka salvation? He only uses it 30 some on times this way in John's gospel alone. Don't get me started on his epistles. You knew what I meant and are just nitpicking, or you never bothered to sit down and read the book of John.
Eating too much food is related to weight gain. That does not mean food is weight gain.
The fact remains that the term eternal life is still life. The life one gets for salvation is still life.
You've been defeated and everyone who reads your responses that are designed to deflect instead of address can see it plainly.

Nice job failing how words work. Words have different definitions in different contexts. In John, living people either have life, aka are saved, or they do not have life, aka not saved. That's the dichotomy John/Jesus uses throughout the gospel. To ignore this use and pretend it is just being alive is beyond absurdity.

FYI, John 1 does not say anything like "apart from him" to allow you to pretend Jesus was the only exception for things that were made without him.
Here is my Expository Rendering. I don't claim it's the only possible rendering but I do claim it's based on solid grammatical and linguistic principles.


John 1:2-4

This one was with God in the beginning.

All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else.

But what was made in him was life and his life was the light of men.

If you think it's reasonable to send people a 20 page paper in response to such, you need to get your head checked. Cut and paste the meaningful part, don't send links. I've read a few pages of your paper. BTW, it's not expository. You made so many mistakes in the five some odd pages I read, I'd have to write a 100 page paper to simply point them all out. It's embarrassing bad. Even the heretics at liberal seminaries would fail such a paper because you need some standards.

FTI, the Greek text does not say, there is no meaningful justification for writing:
"All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else." That's not Scripture. That's your fabrication

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
This is not a grammatical argument; it's a literary argument. Grammatical arguments relate to the Greek grammar involved in the Text. I doubt you've ever read a grammatical argument given this response. BTW, You're still trying to justify a blatant contradiction? You might as well admit 2 = 3.



Nice job failing how words work. Words have different definitions in different contexts. In John, living people either have life, aka are saved, or they do not have life, aka not saved. That's the dichotomy John/Jesus uses throughout the gospel. To ignore this use and pretend it is just being alive is beyond absurdity.



If you think it's reasonable to send people a 20 page paper in response to such, you need to get your head checked. Cut and paste the meaningful part, don't send links. I've read a few pages of your paper. BTW, it's not expository. You made so many mistakes in the five some odd pages I read, I'd have to write a 100 page paper to simply point them all out. It's embarrassing bad. Even the heretics at liberal seminaries would fail such a paper because you need some standards.

It better fits the biblical languages forum on CARM. This is just the part on Asyndeton.


Thread 'John's use of Asyndeton in the prologue of John'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/johns-use-of-asyndeton-in-the-prologue-of-john.5236/

FTI, the Greek text does not say, there is no meaningful justification for writing: "All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else." That's not Scripture. That's your fabrication
As a matter of I just used a gloss from Danker's Greek lexicon. It's in the footnote.

Danker's Concise Greek Lexicon
διά
[basic sense ‘through’] through—A. w. gen.—a. place Mk 9:30; Lk 6:1; 1 Cor 10:1; thing Mt 7:13; Mk 10:25; group 2 Cor 8:18.—b. temporal use, of duration Mk 5:5; Ac 16:9; during Lk 9:37 v.l.; Ac 5:19. διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν throughout the lifetime Hb 2:15.—c. instrumentality—α. thing Ac 5:12; Gal 1:15; Eph 1:7; prevailing condition under which someth. takes place Ro 2:23; 3:24; 10:17; 2 Cor 1:11; Phil 1:20; causal 1 Cor 1:21.—β. personal agency Mt 1:22; 11:2; Lk 17:1; J 1:3; Ac 1:2; Ro 1:2; supported by 2 Ti 2:2.—B. w. acc.—a. spatially through Lk 17:11.—b. causally because (of), for the sake of, Mt 6:25; Mk 2:4; Ac 10:21; of emotional states, such as envy, fear, love from, out of Mt 27:18; J 7:13; Eph 2:4.—διὰ τί; because of what? = why? J 7:45; 1 Cor 6:7; διὰ τοῦτο therefore Ro 1:26; 2 Th 2:11.Δία, Διός acc. and gen. of
 
Last edited:

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
This is not a grammatical argument; it's a literary argument. Grammatical arguments relate to the Greek grammar involved in the Text. I doubt you've ever read a grammatical argument given this response. BTW, You're still trying to justify a blatant contradiction? You might as well admit 2 = 3.

God Bless

That's because you are not familiar with Asyndeton. It's a conjunction just like και, δε or αλλά. Linguists mark it with θ.

The main intersentence conjunctions are asyndeton, de, kai, oun, gar, ara, men, te, alla, dio, tote, hōste when followed by an indicative - Polythress

If exegeting και in a Greek text is grammar so is θ, especially the way John uses them.
 
Last edited:
Top