Dr James Donaldson, in his Critical History of Christian Literature, &c, after noticing that no translation into English can exactly represent difficulties which the words of the first verse of the fourth Gospel suggest, writes:—
"That John does not assert that the Logos was one, or of the same nature which the God, is plain from his use of QEOS without the article. The unity of the Divine Nature in God and Christ may be a satisfactory explanation of John's statement, but it is not what John states. The word QEOS, as we shall see in treating of Justin Martyr's use of the term, and in many other cases, was very widely applied. It was sometimes applied to man when perfected. It was applicable to any being possessed of supernatural powers; especially was it applicable to a being who was worshipped. And perhaps what John meant to do, and certainly what he seems to do here, is to make a very wide general statement that the Logos was Divine. He does not obviate any of the difficulties which might arise from the assertion. As far as John's statement goes, we are bound to believe that the Logos is a Divine Being; but we go beyond John's statement when we either assert that there are two Gods of equal glory and of the same substance, or that there is but one Divine Being, but two persons. John's assertion is of the vaguest and most general nature. ... It seems scarcely possible not to identify the statement in John's introduction with Philo's doctrine. But we are not bound on that account to suppose that John accepted the whole of Philo's doctrine. His words, and the Word was a God, do not state that the Logos was a second God" (Vol. ii., Introduction, pp. 41-43).
@C Mc posted:
With harden minds and in tandem harden hearts, the saturating waters of truth can't penetrate or soften. "Like water on a duck's back," the softening agent of truth rolls right off. As evident in biblical teachings, I suggest sharing previous posts once again compiled for a snapshot of what some cannot see or refuse to accept. Necessity requires this when we don't stay on topic within a thread or threads containing more or less the same materials. For its weight in revelatory truth, see Jesus-God again through the eyes and work of the "inspired writers:
I don't have any comment about your mind or heart, or about what you can or cannot see and accept, CM. But I do have some comments about the argument you made in the post from which I pulled this quotation.
First, a question for you: Much of the content of your posts on Christological matters is content that you copy and paste from other resources... which is certainly an acceptable approach to post creation. In most such posts, you cite the sources from which you copied the content, but not in your most recent post in this thread. Can you post the source(s) from which you drew that content?
As for the argument made by that pasted content, I don't find it at all compelling because while I agree with its characterizations of the content of verses about Michael found in Daniel, your pasted content does not show a link between Michael and Jesus.
I acknowledged your post. Thanks for your participation. Please see @C Mc thread on Michael: https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/18486#Comment_18486
I will continue studying the passages mentioned above of interest to you. Given your posts over the years (Divinity of Christ Denier), your quest in these forums is NOT to seek the truth of who Jesus is.
In my opinion, you seem to search for more cement to further plaster and harden your Unitarian quasi-JWs position. I choose not to be a handmaid of your endeavors. You may leave comments in the link provided above.
I will continue studying the subject matter as I find the time. Thanks for your understanding.
PS. Have you pressed (totally/thoroughly) the "Reset Button? That is, releasing all posters and allowing them total freedom as authorized upon entry and not to your demands.
@C Mc posted:
I acknowledged your post. Thanks for your participation. Please see @C Mc thread on Michael: https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/18486#Comment_18486
Thanks for the link. Upon further review of your previous post in this thread, I notice that you identified its content as the repost of material previously presented. My oversight. In its original location I found its source. Thanks.
I will continue studying the passages mentioned above of interest to you. Given your posts over the years (Divinity of Christ Denier), your quest in these forums is NOT to seek the truth of who Jesus is.
In my opinion, you seem to search for more cement to further plaster and harden your Unitarian quasi-JWs position. I choose not to be a handmaid of your endeavors. You may leave comments in the link provided above.
Am I correct to presume that this commentary about me and my "quest in these forums" means that you're not going to engage the substance of my previous post, i.e. my response to the content about Michael in Daniel, Jude, and Revelation that you've pasted into two of your forum posts?
PS. Have you pressed (totally/thoroughly) the "Reset Button? That is, releasing all posters and allowing them total freedom as authorized upon entry and not to your demands.
As I wrote in THIS POST last month,
"I long ago hit the proverbial "reset button" related to your refusal to name the CD poster(s) whom in a September 2019 post you insinuated were not Christians.
"As for my refusal to respond when in the future and unprompted you call me out to address an issue or explain some alleged news item(s), as you did HERE, that's a "reset button" I have not pushed. Your long-standing practice is not to respond to me when I respond to your challenges or debunk your conspiracy theories, so it's poor stewardship of my time to reply to such challenges and I will no longer do so. In this present case, however, you didn't call me out, so that restriction does not apply."
So the answer to your question is no, I have not "totally/thoroughly" pressed the reset button. But as to your advocacy for your and other posters' "total freedom" to post and not post as you see fit, to my knowledge, you have it and have never been without it. You have always been and will always be free not to participate in my "search for more cement to further plaster and harden [my] Unitarian quasi-JWs position," and to "choose not to be a handmaid of [my] endeavors," regardless of my "demands."
@Bill_Coley said to @C Mc:
Am I correct to presume that this commentary [comment] about me and my "quest in these forums" means that you're not going to engage the substance of my previous post, i.e. my response to the content about Michael in Daniel, Jude, and Revelation that you've pasted into two of your forum posts?
Only if you failed to consider my statement above, reposted below, due to your oversight or outright dismissal because of your apparent superior-demanding attitude.
@C Mc said to @Bill_Coley above in my last post above:
I will continue studying the subject matter as I find the time. Thanks for your understanding.
Regardless of the reason, stay tuned to the assigned thread for my response at the time of my choosing. CM
PS. Old habits of yours (@Bill_Coley) are hard to break. CM
@C Mc posted:
Only if you failed to consider my statement above, reposted below, due to your oversight or outright dismissal because of your apparent superior-demanding attitude.
Your "statement above" declared that you would "continue studying the subject matter," including the passages I referenced, as you found the time. But I didn't actually ask about your plans for subject and/or passage study; I asked about your plans to respond to the substance of one of my posts.
Given your commentary about me and what you called my "quest in these forums" - i.e. to "search for more cement to further plaster and harden [my] Unitarian quasi-JWs position" - "endeavors" for which you declared you would not "be a handmaid," I didn't interpret your intention to "continue studying" to be an intention to respond to the substance of take on Michael in Daniel, Jude, and Revelation. Are you saying that as you find time and at the time of your choosing you WILL respond to that substance, in spite of your view that my "quest in these forums is NOT to seek the truth of who Jesus is"? If so, I will call your intention magnanimous.
PS. Old habits of yours (@Bill_Coley) are hard to break.
They are indeed! What's worse, I just read in MAD Magazine about a study whose conclusion is that even some "new" habits can be hard to break. And don't even get us started about habits that are no longer new, but aren't yet old. Those monsters own their victims.
THE spirit creature Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible, but when he is, the context is always dramatic. In Daniel we see him fighting wicked angels on behalf of God’s people. In Jude he is disputing with Satan over the body of Moses. And in the book of Revelation he casts Satan and his demons down to the earth. Evidently, Michael is a key figure in heaven. Hence, it is proper to wonder, Who is Michael?
For many years Jehovah’s Witnesses have taught that Michael is a heavenly name for the only-begotten Son of God, who was named Jesus while on earth. However, most other religions view Michael as one of several archangels, as if there were more than one archangel. In view of this, Is the teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses correct? What does the Bible say about Michael?
We are introduced to the one named Michael in the book of Daniel. There an angel of God refers to him in these words: “But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me . . . And now I shall go back to fight with the prince of Persia. When I am going forth, look! also the prince of Greece is coming. However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these things but Michael, the prince of you people.”—Daniel 10:13, 20, 21.
Here we have a fascinating glimpse of the spirit realm. We see that spirit creatures—good and bad—are very much involved in world affairs. There was a spirit “prince of the royal realm of Persia,” opposing the activities of God’s angel. After Persia there would be a “prince of Greece,” promoting the interests of that world power. Among these spirit creatures, Michael was one of “the foremost princes.” Which nation did he guide and protect? Clearly, it was Daniel’s people, the Jews.
The name “Michael” means “Who Is Like God?” thus indicating that this foremost prince upholds Jehovah’s sovereignty. Since Michael is also a champion of God’s people, we have reason to identify him with the unnamed angel that God sent ahead of the Israelites hundreds of years before: “Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; because my name is within him.”—Exodus 23:20, 21.
It is logical to conclude that this was the angel that delivered so many important communications to God’s people. (Acts 7:30, 35; Judges 2:1-3) He had full authority from God to act in His name, just as kings in ancient times entrusted their seal rings to reliable subjects, empowering them to act in their name.—Exodus 3:2, 3; 4:10.
Is there anything here to make us believe that Michael and Jesus Christ are the same person? Well, Jesus is called “the Word.” (John 1:1) He is God’s spokesman. This special angelic messenger, too, was clearly God’s chief spokesman to the Israelites.
In going back through some of our exchanges I came across this statement in one of your posts which I believe clearly defines the issue of grammar between us with regard to Jn. 1:1.
The reason theon is "the God" because it is accusitive, drawing attention and ephasizing God to mean "the God".
What we agree on is that θεόν is the accusative case of θεὸς, and that τὸν θεόν translated is the God; where we disagree is found in the confusion of the grammatical accusative form being put forward as "The reason theon is "the God" because it is accusitive". This line of reasoning isn't founded on grammar as the case form is informing the reader what function the word(s) are performing within the sentence. τὸν θεόν or ὁ θεὸς are still translated the God.
The second part of your statement "drawing attention and ephasizing God to mean "the God"." is rather off the mark as "drawing attention and emphasizing God" is not the case, and "to mean "the God"" is nonsensical as the text states τὸν θεόν (the God). καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν simply states, "and the Word was with (the) God".
If the intent was to state that the article τὸν brings definiteness to θεόν, very well; however, what was stated reads as if the definiteness is to be uniquely attributed to the accusative case which is incorrect.
The accusative "theon" is used in the first instance alone and the second instance is differentiated. That is why the Apostle John uses the normative "theos".
The nominative θεὸς in the third clause is used in a specific way; i.e., (anarthrous) predicate nominative as has been previously discussed throughout these conversations. We agree that this use is qualitative in nature. Though as I have mentioned in a previous post by rendering θεὸς as a god the qualitative force is removed and becomes quantitative instead – completely different.
Otherwise "theon" would have been used in both instances, which it is not.
I would simply ask you what function does the accusative case perform within Greek grammar according to Greek grammar?
John didn't use the accusative θεόν in the third clause because what he wished to say did not require an object of a preposition, direct object, or adverbial use (godly), etc.
Jesus is never called theon.
I'm certain there are many things Jesus is never called in scripture; but, you do believe Jesus is called θεὸς correct?
