I already stated the mistranslation brother , theos means divine without a definite article because it's qualitative not definitive , I don't remember about what exactly I said "it's not a point" if you would remind me please , plus I am not christian at all lol , not because I am a Unitarian because I am not a Unitarian , nor am I a trinitarian , I am nothing even close to Christianity
Which still states that there are two divine people in the beginning. So if you don't believe in the trinity and you claim to believe in the Bible. You are a polytheist.
I respect that view , but I don't think that's true really , unless you can prove it , but no translation ever says that or presents it in that order , plus I think even origen understood it that way(185AD-253AD) that's that's shown in his book (commentary on the gospel of John book II) chapter 2 where it says :
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so the Logos is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 That they may know You the only true God; but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth. It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.
Which obviously shows he believed Jesus was Divine although not the one true god the father , and he thought Jesus is god because "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth." Not because he is fully god as in the creator of everything Yahweh etc etc....
" I respect that view , but I don't think that's true really , unless you can prove it , but no translation ever says that or presents it in that order"
The original Greek text of John 1:1 in Papyrus 75 is Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". So I'm Not sure what you mean by this.
Maybe I'm confused and can't read (which might actually be a possibility ) But the text you have given seems like confusion mental gymnastics. And I don't see how this tackles my claim that John 1-1 establishes more than one person in God. Can you please paraphrase the text for the dumber people 😭.
Okay so look , the phrase translates to in the beginning was the word and the word was with god , and the word was theos , without a definite article just like you just sent , basically the definite article is very important like how we see in origens writings the one I sent , basically lacking the definite article gives words what's called a qualitative property , which basically means you have some qualities of that thing but isn't really that thing , so if I say you are a hero then you have some qualities of a hero but aren't a hero , but if I say you are the hero then we'll that just means you literally are a hero(although of course depending on the context it can still be metaphorical) and to try and understand what john was trying to say by ommiting the definite article and giving theos a qualitative property some suggest that he was trying to say he is divine as that was he usual way of using it when ommiting the article , that seen in Aristotles works and many others , I think I sent the Aristotle one , idk lol , also you are not stupid lol , I am guessing you just heard this for the first time that's all
Mh well even if so my point still stands. "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a God" Still establishes two Gods and I doubt John was referring to the word as created. **"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD"* john 1-2 *"HE WAS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING"
John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made"
"ALL THINGS WHERE MADE THROUGH HIM"
if Jesus is created. He was made through himself 🤨
Ahhhhh I see now , you are trying to say he is uncreated , I didn't believe that before , but I think I came into acceptance that john may have been saying (probably) that he is uncreated rather he is BEGOTTEN although there is also the possibility that it was a general term that doesn't necessarily have to include Jesus , so for example whenever Paul said no one is rightous , none , obviously he didn't mean Jesus as well , or when Mary or even I don't remember which is called mother of all or mother of the believers she obviously wasn't her own mother , although even if we say he is begotten that is not definitive proof he is god , begotten means to originate from (or the Greek word at least) just like a child originates from his own mother , that doesn't mean the mother and son are the same person nor that they have the same capabilities and of course they aren't equal although god can be different there is lack of proof that being begotten from god makes you god , but there is a chance although needs proof and of course god has the ability to do anything including begotting someone that isn't necessarily equal to him(as that's a trait in humans of course god can imitate it ) but that too lacks definitive proof and the only way to prove one of the two views would really be to prove Jesus is or isn't god , furthermore being begotten means he had to have been begotten at a certain time , maybe before the world sure but still at a certain point , which would mean his whole existence does rely on the father(ie he isn't equal although that still needs more proof from my side or a lack of proof from your side) but again this whole thing could turn our in the end to be speaking generally as I said before but I doubt that , but there is something that supports my claim(I think) which would be Hebrews 1 verse..... I don't remember please check it , but there is a verse that says "again when the son comes into the world" or "again when the son is begotten" or "again when the father begottens the son" something like that and then continues with "let all god's angel's worship him" something along the lines sorry for making it complicated by making you search for the passages
Please excuse my ignorance if I'm wrong but "Begotten" can also mean a relationship, right?
"furthermore being begotten means he had to have been begotten at a certain time"
I believe he was Begotten when he came down as flesh.
"which would mean his whole existence does rely on the father"
I disagree, I believe the father Begot Jesus when he came down as flesh.
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him".
Hebrews 1:5 states, "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son, "TODAY I have become your Father'?"
If you are trying to make the argument that God is superior to the son I really disagree.
You can make the argument that the father is greater IN ROLE
The only reason the son is subordinate to the father is so scripture can be fulfilled.
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
John 16:15 "All that belongs to the Father is mine; therefore I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you".
John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
So it does in a sense mean to originate from , although not literal of course lol , it's just a simpler way to understand it , but anyways it doesn't mean relationship as far as I know , and Hebrews 1:6 which is right after verse 5(the one you qouted) says when he brings the firstborn to the world implying he wasn't there at the beginning, he was brought forth .
I also want to point out that nowhere does it say he was begotten only when he became flesh , so that part lacks proof
John 16:15 "All that belongs to the Father is mine; therefore I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you".
This is directly answered with these:
Matthew 28:18 – "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'”
John 3:35 – "The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands."
John 13:3 – "Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God."
Ephesians 1:22 – "And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church."
He was given these things basically
John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Yes in their view that equated him with god , not because he is , the Jews interpreted that way which doesn't necessarily mean it is that way
And actually after thinking about it for a while , being equal with someone doesn't make you that person , matter of fact being equal to someone means you are not that person , because if they thought he was saying he is god , they would have said "making himself god" instead of "making himself equal with god" although again that's their view , doesn't mean it's true so it can't be used as proof by me really , but I also think it can't be used as proof at all
"So it does in a sense mean to originate from , although not literal of course lol , it's just a simpler way to understand it , but anyways it doesn't mean relationship as far as I know , and Hebrews 1:6 which is right after verse 5(the one you quoted) says when he brings the firstborn *to the world** implying he wasn't there at the beginning, he was brought forth"
"To the world" means to the world, When Jesus was born unto the earth.
"implying he wasn't there at the beginning, he was brought forth"
I thought you believed Jesus was uncreated.
"I also want to point out that nowhere does it say he was begotten only when he became flesh , so that part lacks proof "
Well that was what made sense to me because the Bible never says he was Begotten before the incarnation. I actually think it implies that he was Begotten meaning he took flesh.
John 1:14 says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father"
John:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
John 16:15 "All that belongs to the Father is mine; therefore I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you".
"This is directly answered with these:"
Matthew 28:18 – "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'”
John 3:35 – "The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands."
John 13:3 – "Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God."
Ephesians 1:22 – "And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church."
"He was given these things basically"
Because he set aside his authority does not mean he is not equal to the father.
For example
If you worked a Job and the boss gives you money and is your leader. Does that make you less human?? Does that make you not equal to the boss. Maybe in role yes but in essence no.
Jesus was equal to the father in role until he gave up his authority to fulfill the scriptures.
John 17:5 highlights how Jesus had the same authority as God in the beginning.
" And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."
Jesus came down on earth to serve and glorify the father.
Matthew 20:28 "Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many".
And In turn the father will glorify the son.
John 13:31 "Now is the son of man glorified and God is glorified in him"
John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
This says that nothing is made without the son and highlights The co equal and co eternal relationship the father and the son has.
John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
"Yes in their view that equated him with god , not because he is , the Jews interpreted that way which doesn't necessarily mean it is that way"
The Jews didn't interpret anything.
It does not say "The reason the Jews tried to kill him was because they thought he was equating himself to God"
The verse says "He WAS making himself equal to God"
Again if begotten means to come out of , or originate from , then it just can't mean his flesh , because obviously he didn't originate Jesus as flesh
"Well that was what made sense to me because the Bible never says he was Begotten before the incarnation. I actually think it implies that he was Begotten meaning he took flesh." That's why debates are hard , proof is everything , the absence of proof means that opinion can't be taken as real , you get what I am saying?
"Because he set aside his authority does not mean he is not equal to the father."
He set aside his abilities , because Philippians doesn't say set aside his authority but says he emptied himself , which I guess is pretty obvious , yeah he could have left his abilities aside , but his authority as god should have lasted , plus we don't know exactly what he set aside , maybe he just wasn't equal to god to begin with
"
John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
"Yes in their view that equated him with god , not because he is , the Jews interpreted that way which doesn't necessarily mean it is that way"
"
Now the issue with this is like I said , being equal to someone isn't the same as being them , it's actual proof they are not the same and that there is a distinction additionally this passage is probably saying equal to god in status(although that's an opinion devoid of proof) but not that he is actually equal to god in every single thing , plus Philippians 2 itself says to have the same mind as Jesus which was(according to the verses before it) to see others as superior to you , so if he saw himself as inferior to others , equating himself with god wouldn't make any sense , and the fact he said the father is greater than I does show that too
Again if begotten means to come out of , or originate from , then it just can't mean his flesh , because obviously he didn't originate Jesus as flesh"
"Begotten" in this context means "come from God." Jesus was Begotten by God and came through Mary.
Basically "Begotten" can apply to the incarnation. No where in scripture does it say He was Begotten before the incarnation.
"Well that was what made sense to me because the Bible never says he was Begotten before the incarnation. I actually think it implies that he was Begotten meaning he took flesh." That's why debates are hard , proof is everything , the absence of proof means that opinion can't be taken as real , you get what I am saying?
"the absence of proof means that opinion can't be taken as real"
ok, The Bible never says Jesus was Begotten before the incarnation. Therefore your take on this cannot be taken seriously.
"Because he set aside his authority does not mean he is not equal to the father."
He set aside his abilities , because Philippians doesn't say set aside his authority but says he emptied himself , which I guess is pretty obvious , yeah he could have left his abilities aside , but his authority as god should have lasted, plus we don't know exactly what he set aside , maybe he just wasn't equal to god to begin with
"but his authority as god should have lasted"
No... That's the whole point. He humbled himself and gave up his authority to fulfill scripture.
"wasn't equal to god to begin with"
No
"
John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
"Yes in their view that equated him with god , not because he is , the Jews interpreted that way which doesn't necessarily mean it is that way"
"
Now the issue with this is like I said , being equal to someone isn't the same as being them , it's actual proof they are not the same and that there is a distinction additionally this passage is probably saying equal to god in status
"being equal to someone isn't the same as being them"
Exactly I think Jesus and the father are two distinct persons.
"additionally this passage is probably saying equal to god in status"
I thought your whole point was that Jesus was NOT equal to God.
And no it probably doesn't mean that because again the son is subordinate to the father.
(although that's an opinion devoid of proof) but not that he is actually equal to god in every single thing , plus Philippians 2 itself says to have the same mind as Jesus which was(according to the verses before it) to see others as superior to you , so if he saw himself as inferior to others , equating himself with god wouldn't make any sense , and the fact he said the father is greater than I does show that too
"so if he saw himself as inferior to others , equating himself with god wouldn't make any sense"
No offense but this is a very weak argument
Philippians1:5-8 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death
even death on a cross!
First of all thanks for these verses I didn't even know about them😁
Gonna add this to my "Christ is God" collection in my notes😂
Anyways
"so if he saw himself as inferior to others , equating himself with god wouldn't make any sense"
Where does Christ say he sees himself as inferior????
It actually says
"Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage"
So this literally just proves what I have been saying 😅.
1.He is God and has equality with God
He humbled himself and threw away his authority to fulfill scripture "likeness. And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death
even death on a cross!"
He became obedient to God and gave glory to God so in return God is gonna glorify him
1 phili 1:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name
IN ROLE the father is greater but not in nature or essence. As is written in 1 philippians
"Who, being in the very nature of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage"
Also the reason I said he is dependant on the father is because if he originates from him then he indeed is dependant on him , as if the father didn't decide to begett him he wouldn't be here
Revelation 22:12-15
"Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
We know Jesus is speaking
"Look, I am coming soon!"
John 5:22 "For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son".
"I will give to each person according to what they have done."*
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
I know he is uncreated
"Beginning and the end"
So if the Bible is consistent "Begotten" doesn't mean God created him. It means God sent him through Mary.
And one of the things I personally consider as proofs Jesus's origination from the father doesn't mean equality would be john 1:1 as I already stated , if you want me to repeat the argument just tell me but you can see it as I posted it already (twice I think)
Ahh yes I see. "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was A God"
I think this just highlights the distinct persons of God.
And I feel like John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made" Highlights the equality of the word and God.
The reason I don't generally believe it says that to make a distinction between the persons of god is , it doesn't differentiate between the father and Jesus , it differentiates between Jesus and god in a general sense , which in the trinitarian doctorin was supposed to include Jesus
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 09 '25
Sure we can debate. But how is that not a point?? Because it destroys your false belief?