Notes on God in the Gospel of John

Clear said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, as I do not believe an 'early GREEK version' of the Abbaton exists.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?
 
Thomas said:
Would you care to enlarge?
Click to expand...
“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.
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
From the Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (Coptic) translation by Sir E A Wallis Budge M.A. Litt.D., keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum. British Museum and Longman & Co and the Oxford University Press 1913, pps 183-186)
Click to expand...
This thing is amazing. Is it indeed ancient and authentic?
By that I mean not anything like a modern extrapolation or anything
(I know now there is no way of determining exact authors oftentimes, esp of ancient txts, and definitely know way to know if something is "inspired" or even to define what inspired means exactly... but... are there people in that Coptic community who consider this work inspired?)
 
Last edited:
Clear said:
God, the Father; the Messiah/Son; and the Holy Spirit, seem to have special meaning to ancient Jews and to the Christians in their ancient literature. Because there are “THREE” most special individuals, mentioned repeatedly, we call that a “trinity” of individuals.

Judeo-Christians rarely debate this base model.

What they tend to debate is the relationship the Father, the Messiah/Son, and the Holy Spirit have with each other. That is, are they, somehow, the same individual, or are they three separate individuals or is there another relationship between these three individuals.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of Judeo-Christians? Judeo-Christian tradition is often spoken of, but worded that way it sounds like you are talking about people or practitioners of faith... few people today would be described as Judeo-Christians, nor any that I can think of - maybe the early Jewish Christians of the earliest Christian communities could be described that way?

Within Christianity the Messiah and Son are considered the same person, but AFAIK in Judaism the idea of Mosiach being the "son of God" or a personality of G-d, is not accepted. The idea of the Lesser Yahweh or Two Powers in Heaven (spoken of earlier both in this thread by at least you and Thomas if not everyone else too and also in another thread on that very topic) I don't think Lesser Yahweh was thought of as being Mosiach. Was that association made in ancient Judaism? If it was indeed, can you post a link? (I will skim the above to see if you already have)
Also in Judaism, the Holy Spirit is not considered a separate person. If I understand from your posts above, it sounds like you are saying it was? But I'm not sure I understand the case for that...

Forgive me if I've glossed over / missed / misstated anything already covered. I have read through this very interesting exchange, but there is a lot of material between the both of you - In addition to some good expansions by others - about - many concepts with which I am broadly familiar yet not necessarily well versed in the fine scholarly details, if that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top