Did Jesus come into being
This link was recently posted in the Logos forums:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-to-use-the-back-of-a-napkin-to-prove-to-a-jehovahs-witness-that-jesus-is-god/
It contains a solid proof that Jesus did not come into being.
If you believe that Jesus came into being, where does the proof fail?
If you believe that Jesus is not deity, do you agree or disagree that Jesus did not come into being?
Comments
-
The article provides no such proof at all ... the author's opening paragraphs already show contradictory ideas which are "linked" nonchalantly in a manner hoping to make it look as if they were proof of his claim.
Understanding the Trinity may be impossible, but proving that the Trinity is scriptural is not an especially difficult task. One needs only to define the Trinity accurately, then show that the Bible teaches the details of the definition.
How can anyone define the Trinity "accurately" IF - according to his own admission - understanding the Trinity may be impossible" ??? What the author actually means with his "define ... accurately" is in truth a "define ... as you think and as accommodates what you are trying to prove".
Defining the term in a way which he thinks is according to the Bible, he then proceeds to take certain truths from the Bible "linking" them to supposedly support his definition.It makes no difference whether the word “Trinity” appears in the text or not. It only matters if the doctrine is taught there.
It does make quite a difference ... IF something does not appear in the text, it is clear that what is made of it or defined or taught is man-made and NOT God-inspired revelation. It would only be a particular interpretation of human origin, and as such could be reflecting a correct understanding or a false understanding.
The definition of the Trinity is straightforward: there is only one God and He subsists as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God in three persons. Simple.
What does the author mean with and how does the author define the term "subsists"? what does the author mean and how does he define the term "God" ? Does he mean this one "God" (whatever or whoever the term means) exists (lives) IN (inside of) "three distinct persons"? does he mean this one "God" actually exists (lives) AS "three distinct persons"? Does he mean this one "God" exists (lives) only in these particular "three persons"?
In short, the author of the article fabricates not only his argument, but also the basis for his argument ....circular thinking.
Sure, the Bible in the text mentions the "Father", mentions the "(only begotten) Son", mentions the "Holy Spirit" ... but the Bible does NOT anywhere make these into or define these as "a Trinity". Instead, rather plain statements in the text declare that non one else but "the Father" alone is the "true God" (cp Jesus' words recorded in Joh 17:3). The Bible text plainly speaks of the true God being a SINGLE acting "person" (cp. the hundreds of places where "God" is represented by the pronoun "He" and verbs in 3rd person singular.
That Jesus had a beginning is clearly stated in Mat 1.
Mat 1:1
The book of the generation [gr. γένεσις = beginning, origin] of Jesus Christ ...."Mat 1:18
Now the birth [gr. γένεσις = beginning, origin] was on this wise ..."Mat 1:18ff is obviously speaking about the conception of the child in Mary ... conception being the beginning of any human being (unless one takes planning and conversation about wanting to have a child into consideration and speak of such as "the beginning" of the child in a non-literal sense)
In light of this, and coming back to the author and his article, how does he really define the "come into being"? in contrast to his ideas, how does the Bible text speak about about how Jesus came into being (cp. verses mentioned above)?
-
In light of this, and coming back to the author and his article, how does he really define the "come into being"? in contrast to his ideas, how does the Bible text speak about about how Jesus came into being (cp. verses mentioned above)?
There really is only one meaningful definition of "coming into being": Something that does not exist, and some time later does exist, comes into being..
The Bible text doesn't speak about Jesus coming into being.
The author uses John 1:3 to show that Jesus did not come into being.
"All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being."
To me it seems that there are only two possible explanations:
- Jesus came into being through himself.
- Jesus did not come into being.
Or did I miss any alternative?
Explanation 1 begs the philosophical question whether something can bring itself into existence.
Explanation 2 begs the theological question whether someone who is "eternal" can exist, and not be God.
-
Thanks for the napkin illustration. JWs have a safe zone they like to stick to. They have their well rehearsed topics and know what you plan to say before you say it. But I found if you drag them into theological areas they do not understand, it is easy to frustrate them and unravel the single thread that holds their scheme together.
I used arguments from Luther's Bondage of the Will in a discussion with a JW elder. (They are big on free will.) He became frustrated, threw down his hand, and said he would return with some of his cronies, but never came back.
If you recall, Bobby Fischer (Chess Champ) beat Russian Boris Spassky using moves Spassky nor anyone else had ever heard of. Moves they were unprepared for.
-
@Jan said:
There really is only one meaningful definition of "coming into being": Something that does not exist, and some time later does exist, comes into being..The Bible text doesn't speak about Jesus coming into being.
Two verses which I mentioned from Mat 1 clearly speak of "the beginning" of Jesus Christ ... thus the Bible does in fact speak about it!
The author uses John 1:3 to show that Jesus did not come into being.
"All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being."
To me it seems that there are only two possible explanations:
1. Jesus came into being through himself.
2. Jesus did not come into being.Or did I miss any alternative?
The alternative is rather simple and has to do with a translation issue. The Greek word logos has a masculine grammatical gender, thus any definite articles, as well as pronouns associated with this noun are also masculine grammatical gender ("he,him").
Unfortunately, many English speakers are not aware of words having a grammatical gender and thus do not understand since there is no such real equivalent in English, as there is in other languages (for example, French, German) same as in Greek.An example: The equivalent of the word "sun" in French (soleil) is masculine, the equivalent of "moon" in French (lune) is feminine, this is reflected by the definite articles
(LE soleil vs LA lune). In German, actually the word for "sun" (Sonne) is feminine and the word for "moon" (Mond) is masculine and you have with definite articles "DIE Sonne" and "DER Mond". In English however, there is in either case only the same definite article "THE sun" and "THE moon".Now, when it comes to translations, it is of utmost importance to not only translate the nouns correctly but also to correctly translate the articles which means they must be adjusted to the grammatical gender of the noun in the target language. Translating the above sample terms with article from French to German, the masculine "le soleil" becomes the feminie "die Sonne", and the feminine "la lune" becomes the masculine "der Mond". Keeping the grammatical gender of the source language and not adjusting the gender of the article in the target language would be an incorrect translation ("le soleil" into "der Sonne", or "la lune" into "die Mond".
Joh 1:3 in English translations has exactly that translation error, because translators do not adjust the grammatical gender from the Gr. masculine noun "logos" to the neuter noun "word" ... but use the masculine pronoun "him" instead.
Everything was brought into being NOT by a "him", but by the word, by IT !! Compare how God brought things into being as recorded in Gen 1, and you will see that God did so by means of speaking words (!!!), not by a "he" doing something in God's place or as God's assistant, etc
By the way, the German Luther Bible has Joh 1:3 as "came into being by IT [that is, by the word].
Explanation 1 begs the philosophical question whether something can bring itself into existence.
Something does not bring itself into existence ... and as Mat 1:18ff tells rather clearly, Jesus was brought into existence not by Himself, but by means of a conception in Mary who then brought forth the child 9 months later.
Explanation 2 begs the theological question whether someone who is "eternal" can exist, and not be God
Jesus was NOT eternal ... as Mat 1 plainly teaches, he came into being with a conception in Mary.
Please note however, in God's plan for man's redemption, the Messiah was already in existence in the form of word from the beginning ... cp. Joh 1:1 in correspondence with 1Pe 1:20.
-
We are body, soul and spirit. Jesus became body, soul, through Mary, and remained eternally Spirit (God). That is, his Spirit or person is eternal YHWH.
-
Matthew writes about the "beginning" of the human Jesus Christ. John demonstrates that the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ has no "beginning".
So Wolfgang, what you're saying is then that the Logos in John 1:1-3 is not Jesus, but literally God's spoken words?
If that's the case, what do you make of John 1:14? Is it the literal spoken words of God that became flesh?
-
@Dave_L said:
We are body, soul and spirit. Jesus became body, soul, through Mary, and remained eternally Spirit (God). That is, his Spirit or person is eternal YHWH.No, this is incorrect. The only thing Jesus got through birth from Mary is a physical body.
-
Chalcedonian Creed
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
-
@Dave_L said:
Chalcedonian Creed
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
Not sure how this proves your position...
-
@Jan said:
Matthew writes about the "beginning" of the human Jesus Christ. John demonstrates that the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ has no "beginning".careful ... this is nothing but an assumption stated as if it were a fact.
So Wolfgang, what you're saying is then that the Logos in John 1:1-3 is not Jesus, but literally God's spoken words?
I am understanding John 1:1ff in correspondence with what is stated in 1Pe 1:20, which specifies that Jesus was FOREKNOWN (which is not the same as "LIVED BEFORE" !!) by God from before the foundation of the world. How and in which form do things and persons exist in someone's knowledge or in God's case also foreknowledge? they exist in the form of "word (thought, concept)".
If that's the case, what do you make of John 1:14? Is it the literal spoken words of God that became flesh?
I'll give you a rather simple illustration and explanation from my own life and experience, which I am sure many people have had.
Before my wife and I were married we talked about many items that we wanted to achieve as a couple (notice "talked" => word, thought). Among these were "at least two children". From that point on, our children existed in the form of "word" in our minds and hearts and plan. Did they already exist as actual human beings? No! Did they exist as thought and word in our plan? Yes! Approx. 15 months after we were married, our son was born .... what had happened to our word (thought)? What from even before our marriage had been "word" in our plan had now "become flesh" (the human being). Four years later, our "word" again "became flesh" when our daughter was born.
The Bible is clear and plain that from before the foundation of the world, God had a plan for a human being to be born who would be the Messiah. From before the foundation of the world this Messiah existed as "word" (cp John 1:1ff) in God's foreknowledge (cp 1Pe 1:20). This "word" concerning the coming Messiah is first mentioned in the promise recorded in Gen 3:15. At that time the Messiah ("the seed of the woman") was not a living being somewhere, was he? Throughout human history then, more details and "word" concerning this coming Messiah was revealed and made known to man (cp the prophecies given in the OT scriptures).
Then, when the time had fully come (and NOT BEFORE) did that "{Messiah}-Word become flesh" when the promised child "was born of a woman" (cp Gal 4:4)
-
So am I understanding right that you're saying that before Jesus' conception, he only existed as "foreknown thought", or a word?
How is that in any way different from the foreknowledge God had about the rest of us before the foundation of the world? Ephesians 1:4
-
@Jan said:
So am I understanding right that you're saying that before Jesus' conception, he only existed as "foreknown thought", or a wordCorrect ... this is what I read in John 1:1ff and 1Pe 1:20.
How is that in any way different from the foreknowledge God had about the rest of us before the foundation of the world? Ephesians 1:4
The truth regarding foreknowledge is the same ... different things and different persons existed in God's plan and in His foreknowledge (such as the Messiah, or the truth that believers in the Messiah would be sons of God, etc.) in the same form, that is, as "word" etc.
The difference between Messiah Jesus and those who believe in him and are members of the church of God is NOT in the fact that these were part of God's foreknowledge.
The difference between our two children was not in the fact that we had two children in our minds and plan for our lives, but in that in one case, "our word became flesh" as a male child while in the other case "our word became flesh" as a female child; in addition a four year period of time had elapsed in between
-
Okay then, if there's no difference in the foreknowledge and (non-)pre-existence, why can Jesus claim that he has seen Abraham, and even claim "before Abraham was, I am".
If there's no difference, I could claim the same, and be as right about it as Jesus.
Mere words, and mere thoughts don't have eyes.
And why did the Jews want to stone him for these claims? Did they completely misunderstand his teaching?
-
@Jan said:
Okay then, if there's no difference in the foreknowledge and (non-)pre-existence, why can Jesus claim that he has seen Abraham, and even claim "before Abraham was, I am".If there's no difference, I could claim the same, and be as right about it as Jesus.
Mere words, and mere thoughts don't have eyes.
And why did the Jews want to stone him for these claims? Did they completely misunderstand his teaching?
And how was he also the Creator?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Chalcedonian Creed
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
Not sure how this proves your position...
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
If Jesus did not have a human soul, he did not have a fully human nature.
-
@Jan said:
Okay then, if there's no difference in the foreknowledge and (non-)pre-existence, why can Jesus claim that he has seen Abraham, and even claim "before Abraham was, I am".
If there's no difference, I could claim the same, and be as right about it as Jesus.
Mere words, and mere thoughts don't have eyes.Jesus did not claim that he had seen Abraham, rather he reminded his audience that Abraham had believed in the Messiah ("Abraham has seen my day ..."). Abraham "had seen the day of the Messiah" in what God had shown him and revealed and promised to him.
And why did the Jews want to stone him for these claims? Did they completely misunderstand his teaching?
The Jewish leadership rejected Jesus as the Messiah ... they most likely realized that Jesus was in fact the promised Messiah and his claims that he was the Messiah were true, but they rejected him as Messiah and made false claims against him in order to have him killed.
-
He affirmed when the Jews asked him whether he had seen Abraham, but let's not split hairs over that.
He clearly claimed that before Abraham was, he is.If this is just in the sense of a word or a thought, why did Jesus use present tense?
Don't forget that Abraham also was foreknown, and therefore in the same sense pre-existed as you say Jesus pre-existed.
If that is so, how can Jesus exist before Abraham pre-existed?
-
@Jan said:
He affirmed when the Jews asked him whether he had seen Abraham, but let's not split hairs over that.
He clearly claimed that before Abraham was, he is.If this is just in the sense of a word or a thought, why did Jesus use present tense?
Don't forget that Abraham also was foreknown, and therefore in the same sense pre-existed as you say Jesus pre-existed.
If that is so, how can Jesus exist before Abraham pre-existed?
Jesus DID NOT claim to exist before Abraham existed ... for the very simple reason that Jesus did NOT say "I was (existed, lived) before Abraham was" !!
You even mention that Jesus did not use "I was" which would have been the correct wording had he already existed before Abraham existed. My question for many years has been, Why do theologians, scholars and students seemingly have not sufficient knowledge of language and realize that in order to say what they claim Jesus to have said, Jesus should have used the past tense "Before Abraham was, I WAS" ???
What is your linguistic (please note, NOT asking for your theological!) explanation for this?
It is clear to me that Jesus could NOT have said what people make him say, that he already lived or existed before Abraham lived/existed.From a textual and linguistic perspective, and in the context of the discussion that Abraham believed in the Messiah whereas the Jews rejected Jesus to be that Messiah, I would suggest to consider that the ancient manuscripts did not have punctuation, and that sometimes the punctuation can give a statement a totally different meaning.
For me, the abrupt change from past tense "Before Abraham was" to the present tense "I am" and the seemingly spontaneous and immediate reaction by the Jews, more logically indicate that Jesus was about to confirm that he now is that Messiah standing in front of them whom Abraham already before had believed in.
Perhaps the sense of Jesus words is "Before, Abraham was .... I am [he whose day Abraham prophetically saw]" In other words, Jesus never got to finish the part of his statement which he started with "I am ..." when the Jews interrupted.
-
@Wolfgang said:
The alternative is rather simple and has to do with a translation issue. The Greek word logos has a masculine grammatical gender, thus any definite articles, as well as pronouns associated with this noun are also masculine grammatical gender ("he,him").
Unfortunately, many English speakers are not aware of words having a grammatical gender and thus do not understand since there is no such real equivalent in English, as there is in other languages (for example, French, German) same as in Greek...Here is a contribution to the conversation. It could prove to be helpful.
The Presence and Absence of the Article
The Biblical phrase, ho huio tou anthropou, where the Greek article is employed, is used frequently in the New Testament and is correctly rendered "the Son of man." It should be noted, however, that when in the Greek it is desired to place "stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its mere identity," the article is absent (Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, p. 149). A typical example is found in 1 Thess. 4:15, where logo kuriou is used, which expression means "God's word." That is, the character or quality of the word is emphasized. It is the divine word the author desires to stress in contradistinction to man's word. See further examples in John 4:27; 1 Thess. 5:5; Heb. 6:7.
When Paul in Col. 2:20 speaks of a certain kind of life as en kosmo, it is evident that the qualitative aspect of the noun is most prominent. It is not merely the thought of a life being lived in the world that the writer seeks to convey, but that of an "in-the-world life." Quality rather than identity is stressed by the absence of the article, which 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14. These salutations are largely drawn from the description of the One whom John saw walking in the midst of the lamp stands. In the salutation to the church of Thyatira, the speaker is called ho huios tou theou, "the Son of God" (2:18), KJV and RSV. At the beginning of the vision, the prophet, beholding this celestial being, describes Him as "one like unto the [al Son of man" (1:13). If there was any doubt in the mind of John at that moment as to who this might be, it was quickly dispelled, for the voice of One whom he could not fail to recognize declared, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore" (1:18). To John, the "Son of man" was the "Son of God," and the fact that the definite article is not used in Rev. 1:13 in no way detracts from the exalted nature of Christ our Lord. On the other hand, it enhances His divine-human nature; that even though He is now exalted to the Father's right hand, He is still Son of man as well as Son of God.
In the mystery of the incarnation, the union of the divine with the human in the person of Jesus Christ has enfolded the depths of God's infinite love and mercy, and of man's infinite need. The Son of God came to this earth as the representative of the Father, to infuse into those who receive Him and believe on His name, the life of God, and make them again the sons of God (John 1:4, 12; 3:3, 5). Having identified divinity with humanity, and so become "the Son of man," His own favorite designation while on earth, He ascended to heaven as man's representative before the Father, there to appear in the presence of God for us. The term "God's Son" emphasizes Christ's identity with God, His divine nature, and His close, personal relationship with the Father. The term "Son of man" or "man's Son" emphasizes His identity with the man, His human nature, and His close, personal relationship with humanity.
In this connection, it is interesting to note that the Greek expression huios theou without the article is rendered in Matt. 4:3, 6 "God's Son" by the Moffatt, Weymouth, and Twentieth Century translations. From a consideration of both the context and the text of Rev. 1:13, we believe the better rendering is "man's Son." They reveal the fact that He is still one of us and one with us while ministering in the sanctuary above. He has the human qualities in addition to being divine.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
DANA, H. E., and JULlUS MANTEY. A Manual Grammar Of the Greek New Testament. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1943. 356 pp.
-
Since I don't speak Greek, I can only contribute my linguistic understanding of the English translation.
My understanding is that present tense can be used in at least two different senses:
1. Something that is currently at the present time true, but not always. For example: I am 41 years old. This truth will be soon over.- Something that is generally the case, for example, five is a prime number.
Since Abraham "was" and no longer is, it is logically not possible for the sentence in the present tense to be of the first kind. "Before Abraham was, I am 41 years old." That's nonsense.
Therefore, unless there's an alternative way of using and understanding present tense, the sentence if of the second kind, like saying "Before Abraham was, five is a prime number". This is syntactically still not correct, but logically it makes perfect sense. Five is always a prime number, before Abraham was born, before the world was created, and after the world ends.
So the use of present tense does have theological implications.
-
@Jan said:
Since I don't speak Greek, I can only contribute my linguistic understanding of the English translation.My understanding is that present tense can be used in at least two different senses:
1. Something that is currently at the present time true, but not always. For example: I am 41 years old. This truth will be soon over.- Something that is generally the case, for example, five is a prime number.
Since Abraham "was" and no longer is, it is logically not possible for the sentence in the present tense to be of the first kind. "Before Abraham was, I am 41 years old." That's nonsense.
Therefore, unless there's an alternative way of using and understanding present tense, the sentence if of the second kind, like saying "Before Abraham was, five is a prime number". This is syntactically still not correct, but logically it makes perfect sense. Five is always a prime number, before Abraham was born, before the world was created, and after the world ends.
So the use of present tense does have theological implications.
Have you noticed that "I am" is NOT a complete sentence? using your "five is a prime number" example, I would then ask "I am {what}" ...
Text and context considered, Jesus' statement is incomplete. And the question is, which are correct possibilities from the context as to how to complete this ellipsis ...
As for your two present tense options, I would say that Jesus used the present tense as referring to himself then and there .... no different from when he said "I am the vine", "I am the bread of life", "I am the good shepherd". And I would also say that his contrast with stating who had been before (who had been in the past - "Abraham was before/Before, Abraham was") it makes no sense to then contrast this with a general statement unrelated to not only the time aspect but also the context.
-
@Jan said:
Since I don't speak Greek, I can only contribute my linguistic understanding of the English translation...So the use of present tense does have theological implications.A matter of translation. Present tense at the time of the writer and then there is what is can "present continuous" (ongoing). CM
-
As for your two present tense options, I would say that Jesus used the present tense as referring to himself then and there .... no different from when he said "I am the vine", "I am the bread of life", "I am the good shepherd". And I would also say that his contrast with stating who had been before (who had been in the past - "Abraham was before/Before, Abraham was") it makes no sense to then contrast this with a general statement unrelated to not only the time aspect but also the context.
I agree that the statement is of the same quality as "I am the vine" etc. Purely linguistically and logically, I don't see a problem to place such statement before something that existed in the past.
If Jesus is the vine, independent of time and place, you could say: "Before Abraham was, Jesus is the vine".
And if Jesus exists independent of time and place (i.e. did not come into existence), you could say: "Before Abraham was, Jesus is".The word "before" gives a clear order of events. The second half of the statement ("I am") must necessarily be true before the first half of the statement ("Abraham was"). Any other interpretation of this text would be eisegesis.
-
Contextualization A Path To Understanding John 1:1-14.
Contextualization may be done on two levels:
- The first involves modes of communication. The translation of the Bible, creeds, and other theological ideas into the languages of the receptor cultures is at this first level of contextualization.
This trend is observed in the Judaism of Jesus' time and earlier. The LXX and the works of Philo show that the Jews of the Diaspora interpreted the OT in terms that were familiar to the Hellenized Jewish communities. Philo borrowed both the language and the thought forms of the Alexandrian Jews.
See Philo De Plantatione 30-31 (trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, LCL, 3:276-79).
- The second level involves changing the thought forms and practices that accompany these modes of communication. e.g. Singing Christian hymns in the tune of the receptor cultures and using the instruments of the receptor cultures fits this level.
John 1:1-14. The author's use of the Hellenistic logos motif was intended to solve the Christological controversies in his community. This "polemical contextualization." It refers to the use of an opponent's language against him. However, Osborne does not use this pericope as an example of polemic contextualization. His examples are derived from Paul.
The personified use of logos does not find a parallel in the OT, but it is common in Hellenistic literature. John, therefore, uses it in a way that was familiar to his audience but without borrowing all its Hellenistic notions. Contextualization must have some limits.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCES:
-- David J. Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen, Contextualization: Meaning, Methods, and Models (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1989), 341.
-- Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991), 321.
-- Ben Witherington III, John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster, John Knox, 1995), 52-53. ["For discussions on the use of Logos in the Gospel of John].
-- Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 19-83.
-
@Jan said:
This link was recently posted in the Logos forums:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-to-use-the-back-of-a-napkin-to-prove-to-a-jehovahs-witness-that-jesus-is-god/It contains a solid proof that Jesus did not come into being.
If you believe that Jesus came into being, where does the proof fail?
If you believe that Jesus is not deity, do you agree or disagree that Jesus did not come into being?
Thanks for the link, Jan.
I describe the argument made by the author as conventional. He uses different rhetoric - and a napkin - but in the end makes an argument common among Trinity advocates.
The challenge I offer to his argument is that he relies almost exclusively on John 1, then summarily dismisses texts found in other parts of the New Testament with this.... (emphasis added)
"Remember, don’t let your guest play “What About?” and drag you all over the New Testament. Keep bringing the issue back to John 1:3. All other verses must be understood in light of the unmistakable fact that Jesus is the uncreated Creator."
In my view, there exist "all over the New Testament" dozens of verses that make clear Jesus' and the apostles' view that Jesus was not God. How is it that dozens of verses must conform to a single verse? Doesn't it make more sense - statistically, if in no other way - that the one verse needs to conform to the dozens of verses? Did Jesus and his apostles inaccurately/imprecisely phrase the relationship between Jesus and God THAT many times?
I contend there are a small number of verses that CAN be interpreted to support a trinitarian point of view; John 1 contains a couple of those verses. But the NT writ large contains FAR MORE verses and passages that make a clear distinction between the deity God and the human being Jesus. In my view, what's conventional about the article author's argument is that it, as do most arguments in support of the trinity, relies on a small number of verses while dismissing the witness of a much, much larger number of verses.
-
@Jan said:
I agree that the statement is of the same quality as "I am the vine" etc. Purely linguistically and logically, I don't see a problem to place such statement before something that existed in the past.Well, this is certainly not what I learned in my English classes nor in my German classes.
If Jesus is the vine, independent of time and place, you could say: "Before Abraham was, Jesus is the vine".
I don't think so ... because of the qualifying clause "before Abraham was", the clause would correctly be "I was the vine". If you had a present tense qualifying statement, the clause would correctly be "I am the vine", and if you had a future tense qualifying statement, the clause would correctly be "I will be the vine".
Your suggestion is a classic linguistic mistake of mixing tenses.And if Jesus exists independent of time and place (i.e. did not come into existence), you could say: "Before Abraham was, Jesus is".
Again, see above ... you actually could not say this. Even as you state it here, it is dependent on the qualifying statement (which is nothing but an unproven assumption) "IF Jesus exists independent of time ad place..." And even with this assumptions, one could not say what you claim, because of the qualifying statement "Before Abraham was ..." (see above)
The word "before" gives a clear order of events.
Exactly ... and therefore it can NOT have a statement such as you claim following it.
The second half of the statement ("I am") must necessarily be true before the first half of the statement ("Abraham was"). Any other interpretation of this text would be eisegesis.
What you are doing is exactly what you state here ...
Linguistically, grammatically, the two clauses can NOT be dependent on each other in the sense that they speak of a time sequence. One can only correctly describe something "BEFORE" something or someone in the past with a past tense. If there is a break in tenses, the present tense clause can not be "before" the past tense clause.
Therefore, from a careful textual and also contextual consideration, I come to the conclusion that Jesus must have spoken of (a) that Abraham was before, and (b) that he now was what Abraham before had prophetically seen and believed (in contrast to the Jews, who claimed to be Abraham's children but rejected what Abraham had seen and believed.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Jan said:
I agree that the statement is of the same quality as "I am the vine" etc. Purely linguistically and logically, I don't see a problem to place such statement before something that existed in the past.Well, this is certainly not what I learned in my English classes nor in my German classes.
In both my English and German classes I saw many examples of slightly incorrect grammar and syntax in literature, and in each of the cases, the author wanted to make a point by this kind of emphasis.
If Jesus is the vine, independent of time and place, you could say: "Before Abraham was, Jesus is the vine".
I don't think so ... because of the qualifying clause "before Abraham was", the clause would correctly be "I was the vine". If you had a present tense qualifying statement, the clause would correctly be "I am the vine", and if you had a future tense qualifying statement, the clause would correctly be "I will be the vine".
Your statements are grammatically correct, but leave a logical ambiguity. It could mean that Jesus was the vine before Abraham existed, but no longer is.
In his statement, Jesus obviously didn't want to leave any space for ambiguity.
And if Jesus exists independent of time and place (i.e. did not come into existence), you could say: "Before Abraham was, Jesus is".
Again, see above ... you actually could not say this. Even as you state it here, it is dependent on the qualifying statement (which is nothing but an unproven assumption) "IF Jesus exists independent of time ad place..." And even with this assumptions, one could not say what you claim, because of the qualifying statement "Before Abraham was ..." (see above)
If you're correct about this, and the two halves are independent, then the correct translation would be something like: "Abraham was before. I am."
This would be the exact reverse meaning of the common translation.
Is the Greek language really that odd, that a statement like this could be understood at the same time in its usual and its reverse meaning??
Can you give any evidence (commentary by a Greek scholar for example) that this is a possible meaning of the statement?
The word "before" gives a clear order of events.
Exactly ... and therefore it can NOT have a statement such as you claim following it.
The second half of the statement ("I am") must necessarily be true before the first half of the statement ("Abraham was"). Any other interpretation of this text would be eisegesis.
What you are doing is exactly what you state here ...
Unless you can provide evidence, that in Greek you can separate the statement in two, this is not what I'm doing.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, there exist "all over the New Testament" dozens of verses that make clear Jesus' and the apostles' view that Jesus was not God. How is it that dozens of verses must conform to a single verse? Doesn't it make more sense - statistically, if in no other way - that the one verse needs to conform to the dozens of verses? Did Jesus and his apostles inaccurately/imprecisely phrase the relationship between Jesus and God THAT many times?There are indeed many verses in the NT that describe Jesus as human.
That does not mean these verses make clear that Jesus was not God. They make clear that he was human. That's an entirely different message, and no contradiction.
There's ample evidence in the NT that Jesus was God, and ample evidence that Jesus was human. Since there's no contradiction, I conclude that both statements are true.
-
Okay, I'm off on a week's holiday. If this thread will still be going on next weekend, I'll be back to it.
-
Have a happy holiday!
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
