Is Jesus the Christ a human Person?

[Matthias]

So the dual nature of Jesus is just a concept?

It is a concept which comes down to us from orthodoxy. See the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Church history tells us all about it.

Chalcedonian Christianity.

Still listening to this podcast.

 

[Johann]

Have you read John’s prologue in the Geneva Bible? (The Geneva Bible was translated and published by orthodox trinitarians.)

The Word Became Flesh
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
Geneva Bible.

11.32 PM morning here

 

[Matthias]

The Word Became Flesh
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
Geneva Bible.

11.32 PM morning here

5:35 p.m. in the afternoon here.

Please continue reading and quote for us, if you will, the next four verses.

 

[Johann]

Please continue reading and quote for us, if you will, the next four verses.

Joh 1:2 This same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
Joh 1:4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And that light shineth in the darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not.

So the D'var was an "it"-right?

 

[Matthias]

Joh 1:2 This same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
Joh 1:4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And that light shineth in the darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not.

So the D'var was an "it"-right?

Yes.

 

[Johann]

Yes.

By him (di' autou).
Explain how dia autou can be an "it" since this is not so in Koine Greek.
Do you have a source where auto is an "it?"

By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John’s explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names God’s Son as the one “through whom he made the ages.” Paul pointedly asserts that “the all things were created in him” (Christ) and “the all things stand created through him and unto him” (Col_1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co_8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di' hou).

I will give you this, Christ was the intermediate "agent" as per Robertson Word Studies.

And why did Christians slaughter Christians because of the Triune Godhead-plenty blood has been spilled, excommunication etc. etc.

 

[Matthias]

By him (di' autou).
Explain how dia autou can be an "it" since this is not so in Koine Greek.
Do you have a source where auto is an "it?"

By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John’s explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names God’s Son as the one “through whom he made the ages.” Paul pointedly asserts that “the all things were created in him” (Christ) and “the all things stand created through him and unto him” (Col_1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co_8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di' hou).

I will give you this, Christ was the intermediate "agent" as per Robertson Word Studies.

And why did Christians slaughter Christians because of the Triune Godhead-plenty blood has been spilled, excommunication etc. etc.

Will you say, as several of the trinitarians on this forum have said, that the orthodox trinitarians who produced the Geneva Bible were grammar illiterates? They’re wrong.

You read for yourself and you saw for yourself what the prologue says in the Geneva Bible. It says virtually the same thing in all English translations published prior to 1611* and many English translations since them have said.

You picked up on why they did it, too. Are you willing to throw “it“ away?

Do you think it contradicts with English translations which say “by him”?

*The Wycliffe translation is an exception. Wycliffe didn’t translate from Greek; the others did.

 

[Johann]

Will you say, as several of the trinitarians on this forum have said, that the orthodox trinitarians who produced the Geneva Bible were grammar illiterates? They’re wrong.

You read for yourself and you saw for yourself what the prologue says in the Geneva Bible. It says virtually the same thing in all English translations published prior to 1611* and many English translations since them have said.

You picked up on why they did it, too. Are you willing to throw it away?

*The Wycliffe translation is an exception. Wycliffe didn’t translate from Greek; the others did.

I will in no way condemn scholars who translated our Bible as illiterate brother-all I'm doing is asking you a simple question-do you have sources where dia auto is an "it"

Even the Septuagint you don't find and "it" in the auto-if the D'var was a "thought" then why was it not so translated in the Geneva Bible.

 

[Diserner]

"It" can be personal, it's just a modern convention.

Not a problem.

 

[Matthias]

Consider this modern translation @Johann.

”In the beginning was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency. In it was life, and this life was the light of humanity. Light was shining in darkness, and darkness did not master it.”

 

[Matthias]

I will in no way condemn scholars who translated our Bible as illiterate brother-all I'm doing is asking you a simple question-do you have sources where dia auto is an "it"

Even the Septuagint you don't find and "it" in the auto-if the D'var was a "thought" then why was it not so translated in the Geneva Bible.

Someone else posted it.

You know the OT background. So too did John. So too did the orthodox trinitarian translators like Tyndale, and the others who translated it as or similar to the way he did.

I’ve been posting James D.G. Dunn’s* commentary on the prologue in another thread.

*Dr. Dunn was an orthodox trinitarian. The trinitarians here have dismissed him. Dunn, however, saw what Tyndale and the others saw what John - a Jew, not an orthodox trinitarian - was doing in his prologue, and they translated him that way.

 

[Johann]

Consider this modern translation @Johann.

”In the beginning was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency. In it was life, and this life was the light of humanity. Light was shining in darkness, and darkness did not master it.”

Why now giving me a modern translation modern brother? Sophia-Chochmah and it is Feminine in gender

This is what I'm listening to at the moment, there goes my sleep.

 

[synergy]

Will you say, as several of the trinitarians on this forum have said, that the orthodox trinitarians who produced the Geneva Bible were grammar illiterates? They’re wrong.

You read for yourself and you saw for yourself what the prologue says in the Geneva Bible. It says virtually the same thing in all English translations published prior to 1611* and many English translations since them have said.

You picked up on why they did it, too. Are you willing to throw “it“ away?

Do you think it contradicts with English translations which say “by him”?

*The Wycliffe translation is an exception. Wycliffe didn’t translate from Greek; the others did.

(John 1:1)᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
(John 1:2) οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
(John 1:3) πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
(John 1:4) ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

As much as Unitarians want the Greek words οὗτος (He, Him) and αὐτοῦ (accusative He, Him) to be αυτό (it, that) in John 1:2-3, that's only possible by altering John's actual words. Sorry. John penned οὗτος and αὐτοῦ, not αυτό (it, that).

CC: @Johann

 

[Matthias]

Why now giving me a modern translation modern brother? Sophia-Chochmah and it is Feminine in gender

This is what I'm listening to at the moment, there goes my sleep.

I gave you a modern translation for two reasons: (1) to show you that it wasn’t only 17th century orthodox trinitarians who translated it the way that their spiritual ancestors did and (2) to appeal to your knowledge about davar. You saw and made the right connection. Your reading of the Sages has helped you. Wisdom Christology should have come quickly to your mind when you read the modern translation.

Dunn, as I will show, had something to say about the feminine gender and why John chose to use the masculine logos rather than the feminine sophia. We should keep in mind that we are speaking about grammatical gender.

 

[Johann]

(John 1:1)᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
(John 1:2) οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
(John 1:3) πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
(John 1:4) ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

As much as Unitarians want the Greek words οὗτος (He, Him) and αὐτοῦ (accusative He, Him) to be αυτό (it, that) in John 1:2-3, that's only possible by altering John's actual words. Sorry. John penned οὗτος and αὐτοῦ, not αυτό (it, that).

CC: @Johann

Joh 1:2 ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
Joh 1:3 παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν
Joh 1:4 εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων

 

[Matthias]

(John 1:1)᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
(John 1:2) οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.
(John 1:3) πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
(John 1:4) ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

As much as Unitarians want the Greek words οὗτος (He, Him) and αὐτοῦ (accusative He, Him) to be αυτό (it, that) in John 1:2-3, that's only possible by altering John's actual words. Sorry. John penned οὗτος and αὐτοῦ, not αυτό (it, that).

CC: @Johann

@civic came to my rescue on that point. He did the work for me before I got around to it.

Those translators weren’t unitarians. They were highly skilled in Hebrew and Greek grammar. And they were all orthodox trinitarians.

 

[Johann]

I gave you a modern translation for two reasons: (1) to show you that it wasn’t only 17th century orthodox trinitarians who translated it the way that their spiritual ancestors did and (2) to appeal to your knowledge about davar. You saw and made the right connection. Your reading of the Sages has helped you. Wisdom Christology should have come quickly to your mind when you read the modern translation.

Dunn, as I will show, had something to say about the feminine gender and why John chose to use the masculine logos rather than the feminine sophia. We should keep in mind that we are speaking about grammatical gender.

Where do I find a commentary on Dunn? As I have said before-I am past basics on Koine Greek and Hebrew and I am not dismissing you.

Interesting observation that Dunn saw something I missed re the feminine gender and the use of the Masculine logos as used in John..as you said-grammatical gender.

 

[Matthias]

Joh 1:2 ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
Joh 1:3 παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν
Joh 1:4 εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων

Don’t let him steer you away from what the orthodox trinitarians who translated the prologue in a way which he hasn’t yet grasped. You’re on the right track. Steady as she goes.

 

[synergy]

@civic came to my rescue on that point. He did the work for me before I got around to it.

@Johann picked up on the emasculating "it". Good for him! "Steady as she goes", to quote you.

Those translators weren’t unitarians. They were highly skilled in Hebrew and Greek grammar. And they were all orthodox trinitarians.

That goes for everyone who mistakenly or deliberately misrepresents what John actually wrote.

 

[Johann]

Don’t let him steer you away from what the orthodox trinitarians who translated the prologue in a way which he hasn’t yet grasped. You’re on the right track. Steady as she goes.

Trying my level best-12.28 AM.