John 1:1 according to the Messianic Faith

yonah_mishael

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם
Jun 14, 2009
5,370
1,325
Tel Aviv, Israel
Visit site
✟27,173.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You are both making the logos a divine being although I do not know why yonah_mishael added (itself). Why can't theos be used as an adjective describing the logos?

"And mighty was the logos" or "And powerful was the logos"
The Hebrew elohim was used as an adjective as well (Gen 23:6; Ex 9:28; 1Sam 14:15).
Hebrew אלהים might be translated as "mighty," but Greek θεός is not. It means "a divinity, a god, a divine being."
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"Why can't theos be used as an adjective describing the logos?"

You tell me. I said the logos was adjectivally supernatural, while the definite article distinguishes Ton Theon as the supernatural one, the Creator.
Sorry. I looked at your translation of John 1b rather than 1c. So we are in agreement that it is used as an adjective. Why did you choose "supernatural" as opposed to "mighty"?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hebrew אלהים might be translated as "mighty," but Greek θεός is not. It means "a divinity, a god, a divine being."
Under normal circumstances, that may be true, but when the Greek word order is reversed by placing a singular anarthrous predicate noun before the verb it points to quality rather than identity.


 
Upvote 0

yonah_mishael

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם
Jun 14, 2009
5,370
1,325
Tel Aviv, Israel
Visit site
✟27,173.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Under normal circumstances, that may be true, but when the Greek word order is reversed by placing a singular anarthrous predicate noun before the verb it points to quality rather than identity.

I see that you're using the terms of the discussion as conducted by other people; however, these terms are relevant only if someone is talking about translating it as "God" (big-G, the Eternal One). I'm not suggesting such, so your parroted response is completely irrelevant. The arrangement here is less due to regular syntax (in which it is quite common to use a fronted noun to classify the subject) and due more to the juxtaposition of the subject (ὁ Λόγος) with the verb (ἦν) in each phrase - apparently, for mnemonic purposes.

[X] ἦν ὁ Λόγος (end of phrase - X = ἐν ἀρχῇ)
ὁ Λόγος ἦν [Y] (beginning of phrase - Y = πρὸς τὸν θεόν)
[Z] ἦν ὁ Λόγος (end of phrase - Z = θεός)


Either way, there is no need to translate θεός adjectivally when it can be translated perfectly fine as a noun, with the understanding that θεός has more than one meaning and can refer to other divinities, such as angels and demons. It could very well be referring to the Logos as an angelic being - a divine being - and not as "God." Just as you might say that ὁ Δικαιόπολις ἰατρὸς ἦν doesn't mean that Dicaeopolis was doctorly but that he was a doctor, so there is no reason to translate θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος to say that the Logos was divine or god-like or anything similar, since it can easily be translated just as it is: "The Logos was a divinity" or "the Logos was a divine being" (referring to an angel in both senses).

Greek already has an adjective meaning "divine" (θεῖος), and it isn't used here. Indeed, translating it as "mighty" is just absurd. That's not what the word θεός means - ever.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It could very well be referring to the Logos as an angelic being - a divine being - and not as "God." Just as you might say that ὁ Δικαιόπολις ἰατρὸς ἦν doesn't mean that Dicaeopolis was doctorly but that he was a doctor, so there is no reason to translate θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος to say that the Logos was divine or god-like or anything similar, since it can easily be translated just as it is: "The Logos was a divinity" or "the Logos was a divine being" (referring to an angel in both senses).
Are you saying the logos was an angel and implying that angel was the Son? If not, are you saying an angel created everything? Where do we learn that angels are "divine"?
 
Upvote 0

yonah_mishael

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם
Jun 14, 2009
5,370
1,325
Tel Aviv, Israel
Visit site
✟27,173.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Are you saying the logos was an angel and implying that angel was the Son? If not, are you saying an angel created everything? Where do we learn that angels are "divine"?
Yes, the original Christian faith quite clearly argued that Jesus was the embodiment of מַלְאַךְ יַהְוֶה (= ἄγγελος Κυρίου) from the Torah. Angels are called “sons of God” throughout the Bible, and they are certainly divine beings – replacing in Judaism the entire pantheon of gods that existed in other ANE religions. The “saints” in Catholicism replaced these minor deities. Jesus was thought to be the head of the angels, the first created being through whom God created all the rest of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,002
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Under normal circumstances, that may be true, but when the Greek word order is reversed by placing a singular anarthrous predicate noun before the verb it points to quality rather than identity.

Are you saying the logos was an angel and implying that angel was the Son? If not, are you saying an angel created everything? Where do we learn that angels are "divine"?

Yes, the original Christian faith quite clearly argued that Jesus was the embodiment of מַלְאַךְ יַהְוֶה (= ἄγγελος Κυρίου) from the Torah. Angels are called “sons of God” throughout the Bible, and they are certainly divine beings – replacing in Judaism the entire pantheon of gods that existed in other ANE religions. The “saints” in Catholicism replaced these minor deities. Jesus was thought to be the head of the angels, the first created being through whom God created all the rest of the universe.

GP, Origen taught something similar to what Yonah appears to be saying, that is, theos as a noun in John 1:1c, and not qualitative but quantitative. He was one of, if not the greatest, of the early scholars and textual critics, and taught for quite some time at Alexandria, and that also was in and around the very same time in the early third century that the Bodmer Papyri referenced on the previous page have been dated, (the Coptic texts also read it the same way, Coptic John 1:1-14).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

"Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article:

"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.... The true God, then, is The God (ho theos)."[5]
Elsewhere, Origen refers to Christ as a "second God"[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

But of course several hundred years later Origen was anathematized for some of his teachings. He is still held as a "church father" but was not granted "sainthood", (and a lot of his work was either burned or censored). :)
.
.
 
Upvote 0

yonah_mishael

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם
Jun 14, 2009
5,370
1,325
Tel Aviv, Israel
Visit site
✟27,173.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
daq,

Indeed, but I was thinking more specifically of Justin Martyr who also mentioned that the Logos was called by ἄγγελος and θεός in the happenings at the burning bush where the angel who was visiting Moses identified himself as “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” but it clearly says that he was an angel.

᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου, θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸς Ἰακώβ. (Exodus 3:6)

It also says that he was an angel in this verse:

ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐν φλογὶ πυρὸς ἐκ τοῦ βάτου... (Exodus 3:2)

Justin wrote that he discussed this verse with Trypho and thereby proved that the Angel of the Lord was called “God” but was not himself God, but actually an angel.
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Jesus was thought to be the head of the angels, the first created being through whom God created all the rest of the universe.
Since Jesus is the Creator, He could not possibly be a created being. John 1:1-3 makes this crystal clear.

I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens arethe work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. (Psalm 102:24-27).

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. (Hebrews 1:8-12).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,002
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
daq,

Indeed, but I was thinking more specifically of Justin Martyr who also mentioned that the Logos was called by ἄγγελος and θεός in the happenings at the burning bush where the angel who was visiting Moses identified himself as “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” but it clearly says that he was an angel.

᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου, θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸς Ἰακώβ. (Exodus 3:6)

It also says that he was an angel in this verse:

ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐν φλογὶ πυρὸς ἐκ τοῦ βάτου... (Exodus 3:2)

Justin wrote that he discussed this verse with Trypho and thereby proved that the Angel of the Lord was called “God” but was not himself God, but actually an angel.

And Moses feared to look upon "ha-Elohim" which the LXX later renders as τον θεον:

Exo 3:11a και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον (ha-Elohim)
Exo 3:13a και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον (ha-Elohim)


This is curiously what we find in John 1:1, (which I mentioned previously herein). As you know better than I do the Hebrew language does not tolerate the definite article with personal pronouns. Therefore what does ha-Elohim imply? And what happens to John 1:1 if we read ton Theon as an intensive plural since we see clearly that Theos is used in this manner in Genesis 1:26?

Gen 1:26a και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ εικονα ημετεραν

Here Theos clearly appears to be used more like a "loan word" from Greek which is used as an intensive plural because it is essentially a replacement word for Elohim. Do the apostolic writers then follow this lead? And, even if they do not always, where would they more likely do such a thing if they were going to do it? Would it not be in such a passage as John 1:1 that speaks of a/the beginning? We also see many times in the Gospel accounts where Kurios does not have the article and in many places it is clear that the passage speaks of the Father. Thus they do follow some practices carried over from the Septuagint; for because Hebrew does not tolerate a definite article with a personal pronoun, neither does Kurios generally have the article in the Septuagint where it has replaced the Tetragrammaton. The first example in the apostolic writings would be angelos Kuriou, (angel-messenger of YHWH). There is no article at all but then the article is inserted with angelos only after this is made clear:

Mat 1:20a ταυτα δε αυτου ενθυμηθεντος ιδου αγγελος κυριου κατ οναρ εφανη αυτω

Mat 1:24a εγερθεις δε [ο] ιωσηφ απο του υπνου εποιησεν ως προσεταξεν αυτω ο αγγελος κυριου

I'm not suggesting ton Theon should always be understood in the way presented above, and previously in this thread, but was more or less presenting a "what if?" and only in that circumstance for now, (John 1:1).
.
.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,002
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. (Hebrews 1:8-12).

The portion I have highlighted in red is yet another passage I remember Origen having commented on somewhere, and his reason for suggesting that the Christos was "a second God", (as quoted from the wiki article above).

"therefore God, even thy God", (two "Gods", and Yeshua says his Father is greater).
.
.
 
Upvote 0

yonah_mishael

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם
Jun 14, 2009
5,370
1,325
Tel Aviv, Israel
Visit site
✟27,173.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Since Jesus is the Creator, He could not possibly be a created being. John 1:1-3 makes this crystal clear.

I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens arethe work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. (Psalm 102:24-27).

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. (Hebrews 1:8-12).
As far as I know, the NT is pretty consistent in the idea that everything was created through Jesus but that God was the creator. Do you have any verse that actually says that Jesus created the world?
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes, the original Christian faith quite clearly argued that Jesus was the embodiment of מַלְאַךְ יַהְוֶה (= ἄγγελος Κυρίου) from the Torah.
May I ask who you are considering "the original Christian faith"? Where can I read these arguments?
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,002
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Yes, the original Christian faith quite clearly argued that Jesus was the embodiment of מַלְאַךְ יַהְוֶה (= ἄγγελος Κυρίου) from the Torah. Angels are called “sons of God” throughout the Bible, and they are certainly divine beings – replacing in Judaism the entire pantheon of gods that existed in other ANE religions. The “saints” in Catholicism replaced these minor deities. Jesus was thought to be the head of the angels, the first created being through whom God created all the rest of the universe.

This thinking predates Christianity and comes from 1 Enoch. Whether one considers Enoch as "inspired canon" or not really does not matter and is not the point in what follows. The point is that Enoch reveals what some of the ancients must have thought concerning the usage of Elohim, and perhaps more especially ha-Elohim, in the Torah:

Genesis 6:1-2
1 And it comes to pass that the adam begin to multiply upon the face of the adamah and daughters are produced unto them:
2 And bney ha-Elohim see the daughters of the adam, that they are fair, and they take nashiym unto themselves of all which they choose.


Enoch 7:1-2
1 It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.
2 And when the Watchers, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.


The Genesis 6:1-2 quote from Enoch 7:1-2 is no less perfect than the many places where the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament. The context, meaning, and intent of both passages above are the same. A literal rendering of Genesis 6:4 reveals that the intent may be, in fact, stating that the Nphilim fallen ones, (the same which were fallen Watchers of Enoch), were the "ones named" which fell from `owlam, (olam past).

Genesis 6:4 Transliterated from the Hebrew
4. Ha-Npiliym hayuw ba'arets bayamiym hahem wgam'achrey- ken 'sher yabo'uw bney ha-'Elohiym 'el- bnowtha'adam wyalduw lahem hemah hagiboriym 'sher me`owlam'anshey hashem.
4. The Nphilim-Fallen are in the erets in those days, and again after that, when sons of the Elohiym ("the Angels"?) come in unto the daughters of the adam, and they produce offspring unto them: the same are the Gibborim, (Septuagint Gigantes-Giants) which are of olam, anshey-men, named, ("the named"? as in named in Enoch?).


And look what happens with the passage following on from the above:

Genesis 6:11-16
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, [ha-Elohim] and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God [Elohim] looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God [Elohim] said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.


Here the earth had become corrupt before "ha-Elohim", (the seven eyes of YHWH as written in Zechariah? The seven eyes or fountains are the seven Messengers of the Father and are said to be His eyes which are always upon His Land), and then Elohim, (without the article as written throughout Genesis 1), comes to warn Noah what to do and how to deliver himself and his family. However, in the Enoch account, this same Elohim is not the Father but one named Arsayalalyur, which is a compound name:

Enoch 10:1-21
1 Then the Most High, the Great and Holy One spake, And sent Arsayalalyur to the son of Lamech, saying, 'Say to him in my name, "Conceal thyself."
2 Then explain to him the consummation which is about to take place; for all the earth shall perish; the waters of a deluge shall come over the whole earth, and all things which are in it shall be destroyed. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.'


As already said, it matters not whether one considers Enoch to be inspired or canonical, but rather, the whole point in this case is that this is how the author of Enoch understands the usage of Elohim found within the companion context of Genesis 6:12-16 from the Hebrew text. Thus it is clear that in some cases the ancients did in fact see Elohim as meaning Angels or Messengers.

Possible etymology of Arsayalalur:

Enoch 9:1 - Miykael, Gabriyel, Suryan, (Surjan) Uryan, (Urjan)
Enoch 10:2 Greek Manuscript (P) - Istrael
P = Codex Panopolitanus - Greek MS containing 1-Enoch I-XXXII discovered in 1886 in a grave at Akhmim, the Panopolis of Strabo, (this is the same MS which includes the Gospel of Peter fragment).

I MS : Asarialjor : Asaryalyor
1) Asaryal : Asaryel : Asariel : Asriel : Suryel : Suriel : Sariel
2) Yor : Owr : Ur : Uryel : Uriel
3) Asaryal-Yor = Suriel-Uriel

II MS : Arsjalaljur : Arsyalalyur
1) Arsjal : Arsyal : Rasyal : Rasyel : Razyel : Raziel
2) Aljur : Alyur : Uryel : Uriel
3) Arsyal-Alyur = Raziel-Uriel
4) Raziel is "the Revelator" in the Book of Raziel
5) Raziel : Asruilu : Asrului : Asruliel : Asriel : Asaryel : Suriel
6) Raziel Sefer Neah: Raphael is "the Revelator" sent to Noach
7) Rabbinic passages identify Sariel-Istrael with Raphael

GR MS Enoch 10:1-2 : Istrael : Asaryel : Asryel : Asriel : Asrael : Yisrael
Book of Jubilees 31:15 : Istrael : Yisrael : Israel
Yisrael ~ "He shall rule, (Sariy), as God", (Sariy'El) ~ Genesis 32:28

"Yisrael is My firstborn son!" (LXX prototokos)
.
.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
And Moses feared to look upon "ha-Elohim" which the LXX later renders as τον θεον:

Exo 3:11a και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον (ha-Elohim)
Exo 3:13a και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον (ha-Elohim)


This is curiously what we find in John 1:1, (which I mentioned previously herein). As you know better than I do the Hebrew language does not tolerate the definite article with personal pronouns. Therefore what does ha-Elohim imply? And what happens to John 1:1 if we read ton Theon as an intensive plural since we see clearly that Theos is used in this manner in Genesis 1:26?

Gen 1:26a και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ εικονα ημετεραν

Here Theos clearly appears to be used more like a "loan word" from Greek which is used as an intensive plural because it is essentially a replacement word for Elohim. Do the apostolic writers then follow this lead? And, even if they do not always, where would they more likely do such a thing if they were going to do it? Would it not be in such a passage as John 1:1 that speaks of a/the beginning? We also see many times in the Gospel accounts where Kurios does not have the article and in many places it is clear that the passage speaks of the Father. Thus they do follow some practices carried over from the Septuagint; for because Hebrew does not tolerate a definite article with a personal pronoun, neither does Kurios generally have the article in the Septuagint where it has replaced the Tetragrammaton. The first example in the apostolic writings would be angelos Kuriou, (angel-messenger of YHWH). There is no article at all but then the article is inserted with angelos only after this is made clear:

Mat 1:20a ταυτα δε αυτου ενθυμηθεντος ιδου αγγελος κυριου κατ οναρ εφανη αυτω

Mat 1:24a εγερθεις δε [ο] ιωσηφ απο του υπνου εποιησεν ως προσεταξεν αυτω ο αγγελος κυριου

I'm not suggesting ton Theon should always be understood in the way presented above, and previously in this thread, but was more or less presenting a "what if?" and only in that circumstance for now, (John 1:1).
.
.
Why are you citing teh OT in Greek? Also can you really read Greek, or are you just copying and pasting Greek quotes from commentaries you have read? I kind of suspect the latter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As far as I know, the NT is pretty consistent in the idea that everything was created through Jesus but that God was the creator. Do you have any verse that actually says that Jesus created the world?
It is looking you right in the face. In the Psalm 102 God is addressed as the Creator. In Hebrews that passage from Psalm 102 is applied to the Son -- who is also called God. How much plainer can it get?

When we see that all things were created "through" or "by" Him, it harks back to the fact that in Genesis every creative word was spoken by God, hence "the Word" is said to be the Creator (John 1:1-3). Essentially, the triune Godhead was involved in creation (Gen 1:1), which makes Jesus -- the Son -- the Creator, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,002
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Why are you citing teh OT in Greek? Also can you really read Greek, or are you just copying and pasting Greek quotes from commentaries you have read? I kind of suspect the latter.

The Septuagint does not agree with the Masoretic Text in many key places and most all the apostolic writers quote from the Septuagint. In fact there are some places, such as Hebrews 1:6 quoting Deuteronomy 32:43, where the quote cannot even be found in the Hebrew text. If you do not read this passage from the Septuagint you will likely have no clue that it speaks of bringing the firstborn Yisrael, (prototokos), again into the Land, (after having departed from Egypt and wandering in the desert forty years). Therefore you see the renderings of this passage from translators who have no clue concerning what it truly speaks about. One translation I remember having read even says, "Again, when he brings The Firstborn into the universe", ^_^ Other than that I'm not here to tout credentials and do not care what you think about what I might or might not know.

Does the Father know evil according to your doctrine?
According to the M/T He does know evil:

Genesis 3:22-23 LXX
22 και ειπεν ο θεος ιδου αδαμ γεγονεν ως εις εξ ημων του γινωσκειν καλον και πονηρον και νυν μηποτε εκτεινη την χειρα και λαβη του ξυλου της ζωης και φαγη και ζησεται εις τον αιωνα

23 και εξαπεστειλεν αυτον κυριος ο θεος εκ του παραδεισου της τρυφης εργαζεσθαι την γην εξ ης ελημφθη

Genesis 3:22-23 Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
22 And God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever -

23 So the Lord God sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken.

Genesis 3:22-23 Restored Name KJV (Hebrew Text)
3:22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.


If from the Septuagint we restore ο θεος, (ho Theos), to Elohim, (which surely is what is meant), then the Septuagint is telling us that the Tetragrammaton was not in the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:22 which they used to render the Hebrew into Greek because Kurios is not in the Septuagint text. In addition, if this be true, it is possible and even more likely that the second portion of the verse might become an interrogative, as if [the] Elohim were asking, "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever?" In other words [the] Elohim are shown as not fully knowing all that the Father knows but, unlike the Father, they apparently have known good and evil, and therefore there is a questioning among them. We therefore have a reading that is anywhere from one thousand to thirteen hundred years earlier than the current form of the Masoretic Hebrew text which did not contain the Name of the Father in Genesis 3:22 as the Masorete now does. And what if indeed the second portion of verse twenty-two is a cryptic form of an interrogative which the Father answers to the Elohim by sending the man forth from the garden of Eden? Perhaps this is why the statement which follows in the next verse commences with a word equivalent to "therefore", which would make perfect sense:

Genesis 3:22-23
3:22 And [the] Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever?

3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Situations like this give us great insight into what those who rendered the Septuagint may have been thinking, (some three hundred years before the advent of Messiah and therefore without bias). It also gives us insight into what may have occurred with the Masoretic Hebrew text, which was compiled some 1000 to 1300 years later, for there are quite a few places where the Tetragrammaton appears to have been inserted into the text which are not found in the Septuagint. Were the Masoretes possibly a little too overzealous in an effort to maintain the strict monotheism which separated them from the Christian doctrines of that time, (700-1000AD)? If they were, and they did this, then they went too far in Genesis 3:22 because I know from what is written elsewhere that my heavenly Father does not know evil. I'm not interested in putting all of my eggs into one easter basket but rather understanding the truth concerning what the ancients actually believed and wrote about.
.
.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yonah_mishael

הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם
Jun 14, 2009
5,370
1,325
Tel Aviv, Israel
Visit site
✟27,173.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
May I ask who you are considering "the original Christian faith"? Where can I read these arguments?

Everyone knows that the original believers didn't leave a complete summa theologica for us to know exactly what they thought. What we have are the NT records of their thinking, which have been interpreted and twisted through the years and must have the modern theological interpretations removed from them before we can understand what the authors meant. We know that Philo wrote a lot about the Logos. We know that there was a synthesis occurring at the time between every other religion in the area and some type of mystery religion and savior cult. We can reasonably assume that Christianity was the Jewish version of this mystery-savior religion, based on thinking similar to that of Philo (which was probably popular all over the region) and a desire to have their own dying and rising savior similar to the Greeks’ Dionysus and the Egyptians’ Osiris. There were many such dying-and-rising deities whose worship was centered on mystery rites and initiations.

Additionally, consider how many times Paul used the word mystery to describe God’s interactions in the world when he sent Jesus. Also, Philo created a direct link between the Logos and the high priest Yeshua from the time of the return from Babylon. The name Yeshua was still associated with Sar ha-Pnim long after that in some Jewish texts. It should not be thought abnormal that this would be the natural tendency in the creation of a savior religion based on Jewish traditions.


To claim that something was or was not a belief of the original Christians is a bit subjective and based on the reading of the texts in a way that removes the theological build-up from the years. Some people think that original Christians believed a certain way, while I think it was otherwise. It seems to me most reasonable to understand the originators as the creators of a dying-and-rising savior teaching based on the concept of the Logos descending through the heavens and being killed - probably originally killed by the "principalities and powers" in the sky, and then later developed to have been killed on earth by Pilate. I consider the gospels to be late additions to the development of the story. The original story would have been much simpler.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0