Notes on God in the Gospel of John

[Thomas]

14) REGARDING THOMAS' CLAIM THAT ARCHBISHOP TIMOTHYS’ ABBATON WAS A COPTIC CREATION
You made multiple statements that apply to the later COPTIC version of Abbaton, but (as far as I can see), none of your criticisms apply to the earlier GREEK version of Abbaton that the text says Archbishop Timothy created in the 4th century.

Are we in agreement that your criticisms do not apply to early GREEK Abbaton, but they apply to the later COPTIC Abbaton instead?

No, as I do not believe an 'early GREEK version' of the Abbaton exists.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[Longfellow]

Would you care to enlarge?

“Elohim” and “Theos” can both refer to others besides YHWH, so Jesus approving Thomas calling Him “theos” doesn’t mean that Jesus is YHWH. In fact if Thomas had meant YHWH, he would have used the article or a qualifier that signifies YHWH.

I’m saying that “theos was logos.” in John 1:1 is a definition. It’s what “theos” without the article *means* in terms of Greek theology as it was understood by Philo. “Elohim” in the Tanakh, when it refers to YHWH’s actions in the world, functions in the same way as “logos” in Philo’s understanding of Greek philosophy. “Theos” without the article, when it translates “elohim” in that context, is what Greeks call “logos.” John 1:1 is saying the same thing that Philo says. “Theos” in “theos was logos” is not qualitative. It’s an identity, but not between YHWH and logos. It’s an identity between “theos” without the article, which is *not* YHWH, and the logos. It’s YHWH’s creative word, which is personified in Jesus.

(kater) My current reading of John 1:1 is that he’s saying that in the Greek, when you see “theos” without the article, that’s what Greeks call “the logos,” and it’s that same logos that was personified in Jesus. God’s creative word, what the Greeks call “the logos,” became embodied in a person, and that person was Jesus.