The Creation of Jesus

by berrygerry 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  freeman

  Wonderment, thank you for your input.

  You said:

  That´s a bold assertion. Can you provide any evidence that En archē ēn ho Lógos can only mean grammatically that the Logos was eternal?

  No I can't, you have me dead to rights there. I used to love to debate, but I don't do that anymore. Given my piss-poor teaching ability you make a good argument. You are incorrect nonetheless, but the fault is mine for using a transliteration of Greek, I though it would make it easier to understand, but I shot myself in the foot instead.

  I had a teacher that would have penalized me for doing so, I know better then this, but I am lazy and as I said a piss-poor teacher.

  So here it is Wonderment in Greek, much clearer (I hope) as the first words don't look similar in this form:

  ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ

  The key part is this: ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ This simple phrase in Greek means that whatever object follows this is before time, in other words it has no origin, no beginning.

  So the Logos or the Word has no beginning, he is not the created, he IS in fact the creator of all things created, but not part of the creation itself. That makes the JW's dead wrong according to the very scriptures they say they believe in.

  It took me about seven years to get to this level of understanding, but I have no degree related to this field, I don't teach and I don't pretend to be a teacher of ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, that is to say common or Koine Greek, the type of Greek the Bible is written in.

  I'm not even really typing these Greek characters you are reading, I have no ability with the fonts I have installed, I'm cutting and pasting from crap off the internet but to my eye it looks correct as far as I can tell, so I don't think I'm leading you down the wrong path character wise.

  The bottom line is this: The common Greek of the bible is very precise, a big pain in the ass to learn, but very precise and it says in no uncertain terms that the Word was existing before even time began, eternal, no origin, no beginning, no starting point, always was, just the same as the Father. Get It? This Word fellow is just as old as the Jehovah fellow and both of them are older then dirt!

  I'm not making a statement of faith, I'm not telling you to believe the Bible, that's on you and whatever your beliefs are or lack of belief may be. Belief in a supreme being or the Bible is not necessary, what I'm talking about is linguist science, and science is science, no faith necessary.

  I can't explain it any better then that, as I said I'm not an expert in this field, but I gave it a shot, and the Greek is the Greek, and of that I'm sure of.

  Freeman
• 

  David_Jay

  berrygerry,

  No, the God of Abraham is very unlike the Native American concepts of deity. Jewish monotheism is hard to define to Westerners as they are used to Christianity defining God by creeds and doctines, whereas Judaism does not do this.

  All Jews hold that God gave us the Ten Commandments. Some Jews see this as coming directly from God, others see it as coming through humans.

  In Jewish thought the light of God exists in all creation, animate and inanimate, human and animal. Whenever something or someone fulfills God's purpose, some of that light gets released out into the universe to illuminate the world. So whether the Ten Commandments were written directly by God or by humans, the end result is the same in Jewish thought. They are God's commandments for Israel either way.
• 

  David_Jay

  I am well versed in New Testament (Koine) Greek. While the words can be constructed to be very exact, the language itself is very flexible and fluid.

  EN ARKHE was borrowed by the author of John 1:1 from the Septuagint from Genesis 1:1 where that phrase is used to render the Hebrew word BERESHIT. The word in Hebrew means "when," as in "at the outset" or "in the beginning."

  It is not original to Greek at all. It is a Mesopotamian idiom used in ancient mythology to start stories of folkloric cosmology, and does not have any reference to time or eternity. In the New Jewish Publication Society's translation of Genesis 1:1, as well as the NRSV and the Catholic NABRE, BERESHIT is translated "When" as in "When God created the heavens and earth." This because it has no reference to time, as in the traditional and less correct "in the beginning."

  In Koine Greek ARKHE means "foremost" or "first" as in "first in line." It is the Greek word for a chief, magistrate, or king. It also stands for the first person who gets to a place first, like a winner in a race. It doesn't, however, refer to a start of time.

  EN is merely a preposition which here can mean "in," "inside," or "at." EN ARKHE EEN HO LOGOS simply means "At the beginning [as mentioned in Genesis 1:1] was the Word."

  It doesn't say the Word was existing before time in any of this. None of the words in John chapter 1 in Greek are speaking of time because there were no such concepts back then as we understand them now.

  The concepts of eternity as understood in Christology today entered much later into the church around the time the New Testament was canonized, maybe even before that shortly after the death of the apostate Marcion of Sinope. But many scholars state it was not fully formed until the 4th century with the possibility that John 1:3 was a late editorial anti-Arianism change inserted into the original text.
• 

  freeman

  Thank you David Jay for your input. I won't argue with what you say because I really have no standing in Greek other then I did some college level course work in it and a lot of reading. I am not lettered in this field, it is for my own edification that I started down this path.

  You said in part: “simply means "At the beginning [as mentioned in Genesis 1:1] was the Word."

  It doesn't say the Word was existing before time in any of this. None of the words in John chapter 1 in Greek are speaking of time because there were no such concepts back then as we understand them now

  That said, I happen to know that there are literally legions of true scholars in this field that do not share your particular view, but rather lean more in my direction and present understanding.

  Here is a partial excerpt of Dr. White discussing this very point as part of a larger dissertation:

  Excerpted under fair use rules from John1:1 Meaning and Translation By: Dr. James White :

  John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

  The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food"). It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He antedates that beginning.

  As I said in a previous post, I don't like to debate anymore, but if you so desire, Dr. White does like to both teach and debate and does so all the time, often televised or recorded. And unlike me he is an excellent teacher. He can be reached at Alpha & Omega Ministries. I hope that helps.

  Freeman
• 

  David_Jay

  Sorry, had to go and come back. So before I forget:

  This Word fellow is just as old as the Jehovah fellow and both of them are older then dirt!

  Actually this isn't what is being said in John 1:1.
  

  KAI HO LOGOS EEN HO PROS TON THEON KAI THEOS EEN HO LOGOS

  "...and the Word was set towards God, and God was the Word."

  Or, "and the Word was coming up to the side [rib] of God, and God it was."

  In Genesis chapter 2, the Hebrew word for Adam's rib literally means "side" as in a building's side wall. The Greek word PROS in this sentence describes a motion, meaning to comes to God's side, not merely to be with, to move towards God as to become one with God as Adam did with his wife.

  This explains the last part which Jehovah's Witnesses find unacceptable: "...and God was the Word."

  The verse is attesting that Jewish monotheism has not been abandoned in Christology. In fact, it would not be until the 4th century. The only difference during John's day is that Jesus was now identified with God as God's Incarnation.

  Again the age of Jesus is not being spoken of here. It is the nature of Jesus and his identification with God. There is no time factor in these words.
• 

  David_Jay

  As I said in a previous post, I don't like to debate anymore, but if you so desire, Dr. White does like to both teach and debate and does so all the time, often televised or recorded. And unlike me he is an excellent teacher. He can be reached at Alpha & Omega Ministries. I hope that helps.
  Freeman

  How do you know Dr White is correct?

  I on the other hand am Jewish. I don't even believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. I have no invested interest in any set conclusions as Dr White does. You value his word and recommend him to a Jew, why? To proselytize a Jew? Because Dr White supports your argument? Because academia is behind Dr White?

  Again, I have no investment in Christianity. I only know Koine Greek well enough to help and do know what mainstream academia teaches. I didn't offer my opinion and have no interest in having some Christian ministry attempt to proselytize me away from my culture, way of life, people, land, or religion.

  I was only offering some objective assistance.
• 

  Wonderment

  freeman: "That said, I happen to know that there are literally legions of true scholars in this field that do not share your particular view [i.e. David_Jay’s], but rather lean more in my direction and present understanding."

  Lots of scholars make weird assumptions because they too get emotionally tangled with the traditional religious standpoint where they do not want to give in to another viewpoint. Dr. James White is an example of one trinitarian apologist willing to argue publicly to prove others wrong. White’s assumption on the the Greek en is flawed. All one needs to do to verify whether his claim that en means eternity or not is by using a Greek-English Concordance in order to compare how the verb form was used throughout the NT.
  

  The Greek ēn appears 315 times in the Greek text (Englishman’s Concordance), so right away we can observe that the majority of such ocurrences have nothing to do with Jesus‘ eternity claim. The verb eimí the source word for en is so common that for anyone to claim it means ‘eternity’ it would require that everyone else linked to the en be also eternal. Preposterous is such claim!

  En is linked to a lot of individuals and things known not to be eternal. I pointed out that in Matt. 1:18 the verb form en was connected to the origin or birth of Jesus. No eternity there.

  I also mentioned John 15:27, where according to Jesus his disciples were with him from the beginning (obviously the start of his ministry) = literally, "that from beginning with me you are." Both esté in John 15:27 and en of John 1:1 have their root in eimí. So does the "I am" of John 8:58 (I am) where it is used simply to express existence. The concept of eternity is not required in any of these texts. The concept of eternity is read into those verses by trinitarian believers.
  

  In Revelation 17:8, it is said that "the wild beast that you saw was, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction." Should we claim the beast was eternal?

  A.T. Robertson, a trinitarian, said under Doubtful Imperfects: "Hence we need not insist that ἦν [en] Jo. 1:1 is strictly durative always (imperfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist [which views the whole of the verbal action as a single, unitary event] also." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research) (Page 883)
  
• 

  David_Jay

  Wonderment is correct.

  Also, Freeman, you are making a very limited argument from authority. That is known as a "logical fallacy."

  Critical thinking requires that the critical analytical answer be accepted, not the one that comes from someone just because they are a scholar of specialist.

  This methodology requires that the argument be tested by disinterested parties to ensure that the results are not biased. Once sufficient, disinterested parties have done so and their results have been published and accepted academically, the critical results can be accepted on their own validity as nominal.

  Also, Greek is quite easy to learn. It takes about a year of college level study to be able to read the New Testament text freely. The Greek Orthodox send their children to Greek school were they learn Koine Greek so as to follow along with their Sunday Liturgy. By the time they are 12 or 13 they can read the Scriptures and the Liturgy in Koine Greek unaided. The results are similar for Biblical Hebrew among Jews.

  These languages are not hard. I've been using them, praying in them since I was a boy, even while I was a JW. I am 50 now. Yes, Christians tend to argue over nuances, but they really are quite simple.

  I pray and read in Hebrew four times or more everyday. Scholars and Christian clergy have come to me asking for help in translation work over then years. The idea that these languages are the property of scholars only is poppycock!

  If you haven't learned, it's because some Christian scholars want to keep you in the dark. If Jewish children learn the Shema in Hebrew by age 5, then it's a fallacy of selfish clergy and Christian academics who purposefully keep people confused by the minute details so they have to rely on them and pay them for their Bible translations.

  Christians should be just as equipped as Jews, to read both Hebrew and Greek from infancy like we are so they don't have to rely on scholars or translations to read the Bible. I don't understand why your scholars and clergy and elders won't do such an easy work for you.
• 

  Ruby456

  Critical thinking requires that the critical analytical answer be accepted, not the one that comes from someone just because they are a scholar of specialist.

  This methodology requires that the argument be tested by disinterested parties to ensure that the results are not biased. Once sufficient, disinterested parties have done so and their results have been published and accepted academically, the critical results can be accepted on their own validity as nominal.

  in view of the above by david_Jay I am adding this below as I want to improve my critical thing faculties and bring something to the table at the same time

  Jesus' godship is a very complex area and so many things go back to how Logos is understood. the most fascinating part has to do with how humans began to articulate and vocalise. from what I have been reading neanderthals did not have the skeletal developments that favoured speech to the extent that homo sapiens sapiens do. In order to preserve the ability of speech to convey truth ancients may have devised ways to foreground such ability in culture. The question, however, that I find fascinating is whether or not in the mind's eye we are recollecting what is visible in its perfect form as Plato thought or if we are making it up as we go along.

  so there is a wide semantic range to consider when we talk of what 'in the beginning' or 'at first' or 'before time' actually means.
• 

  David_Jay

  Ruby 456,

  To some extent you are absolutely correct.

  But the discussion is limited to the idioms of the expressions of the narratives. There is a methodology called philology that governs how far we can go with ancient language applications, and it even effects the etymology of the words involved.

  That "wide semantic range" you talked about is not possible here. The author of the gospel of John is speaking of the Jewish Messiah and his relationship to the God of Abraham. At the time of composition the writer still thought of himself as a Jew, but had new concepts in mind due to how Paul had brought changes to Christianity. It appears, some scholars say, that Jewish Christians did not agree or at least struggled with these Pauline views. The author of John seems to have an agenda to set some matters straight.

  Without Jewish words for incarnation, and with no intention to counter the Shema, the author composed the verses in the language of the Septuagint, following the pattern of Genesis in that translation. EN ARKHE are the first words there too, a translation of the Hebrew BERESHIT, which means "where."

  So according to the methodology of philology, we cannot say that any other concepts of "beginning" or "before time" apply. They weren't part of the original material.

  We cannot use them for any critical analytical translation or discussion. Critical methodologies make no room for such things. There are strict limits to critical thinking. Critical thinking employs the scientific method, and this method doesn't allow for just random thought that can be anything. It's a very strict method. It's a very strict discipline.

  I can't help at this moment to comment on how surprised I am. I have read constantly from posters everywhere on this forum how they state they are critical thinkers. Yet, how is it I am introducing philology into this discussion?

  You people do know that you have to formally study critical analytical methodology (called "forensics") in a school environment, right? You have to go to college or some school to study forensics and have a teacher or instructor. You can't learn it on the Internet. When you were all saying you were critical thinkers I thought you had formal training in forensic methods. Am I missing something?