www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Help with Greek in John 1:1

Paul, you did not make a mistake. The Arians believed that Christ was a created being, a sort of super angel, through whom God created everything else, and who subsequently became incarnate as Jesus. This heresy was revived by early Unitarians; modern Unitarians find even this far too much, and mostly believe that Jesus was a good man and great religious teacher but no more. That is not Arianism. The JayDubs are Arian Unitarians; they think that Jesus is the Archangel Michael incarnate, although if I understand correctly the identification of Michael as the Christ is an approved theologumenon and not an actual doctrine.

As for John 1: the JayDubs correctly see a distinction between _ ho Theos_ and _Theos_; these are indeed in John two different identities (hypostases). They miss entirely another crucial distinction in the first chapter of John, that between being and becoming (no educated Greek of that time would have missed this; it was the central problem of Greek philosophy). English translation often have "to be made" where Greek has "to become"; it is more idiomatic in several sentences of the Gospel. But the Greek says "become." These verbs designate two modes of existence, the absolute, eternal, self-derived being of God and the contingent, temporal being of the creation ("all things"). Both _ho Theos_ (= Father) and _Theos_ (= Logos) share in the divine mode of existence. But the Logos or Word also enters into the created mode of existence ("the Word became flesh"). It's all there--Trinity well, at least Father and Son--the Holy Spirit is not specifically referred to here, but once the divinity of the Son is established that of the Spirit follows), two natures of Our Lord, the whole nine yards. The JayDubs simply won't recognize the significance of the being/becoming distinction, and hence misunderstand and mistranslate this centrally important chapter.

The JayDubs have also some doctrines which the Arians of old did not hold--the necessity of using the name Jehovah, the extension of the OT prohibition on consuming blood to transfusions, the distinction between the 144,000 elect who will reign with Christ in heaven and the unnumbered great flock who will live for ever in Paradise on earth, their obsession with the notion that the Cross was an upright stake with no patibulum, their withdrawal from civic life, and so on. But in their doctrines of God and of the Incarnation, they may legitimately be classified as Arians

Stephen R.

Paul, you did not make a mistake. The Arians believed that Christ was a created being, a sort of super angel, through whom God created everything else, and who subsequently became incarnate as Jesus. This heresy was revived by early Unitarians; modern Unitarians find even this far too much, and mostly believe that Jesus was a good man and great religious teacher but no more. That is not Arianism. The JayDubs are Arian Unitarians; they think that Jesus is the Archangel Michael incarnate, although if I understand correctly the identification of Michael as the Christ is an approved theologumenon and not an actual doctrine.

As for John 1: the JayDubs correctly see a distinction between _ ho Theos_ and _Theos_; these are indeed in John two different identities (hypostases). They miss entirely another crucial distinction in the first chapter of John, that between being and becoming (no educated Greek of that time would have missed this; it was the central problem of Greek philosophy). English translation often have "to be made" where Greek has "to become"; it is more idiomatic in several sentences of the Gospel. But the Greek says "become." These verbs designate two modes of existence, the absolute, eternal, self-derived being of God and the contingent, temporal being of the creation ("all things"). Both _ho Theos_ (= Father) and _Theos_ (= Logos) share in the divine mode of existence. But the Logos or Word also enters into the created mode of existence ("the Word became flesh"). It's all there--Trinity well, at least Father and Son--the Holy Spirit is not specifically referred to here, but once the divinity of the Son is established that of the Spirit follows), two natures of Our Lord, the whole nine yards. The JayDubs simply won't recognize the significance of the being/becoming distinction, and hence misunderstand and mistranslate this centrally important chapter.

The JayDubs have also some doctrines which the Arians of old did not hold--the necessity of using the name Jehovah, the extension of the OT prohibition on consuming blood to transfusions, the distinction between the 144,000 elect who will reign with Christ in heaven and the unnumbered great flock who will live for ever in Paradise on earth, their obsession with the notion that the Cross was an upright stake with no patibulum, their withdrawal from civic life, and so on. But in their doctrines of God and of the Incarnation, they may legitimately be classified as Arians

Stephen R.

Oh dear--I unintentionally posted the former reply twice; forgive me. I meant to respond to Memo that I agree in general with his comments, but in my experience JWs are not prepared to deal with the being/becoming contrast in John 1. Those who point out that they are thoroughly programmed before they are sent out to knock on your door are right. This thread provides resources for those who care to discuss scripture with them, but if you don't want to put it a good deal of time and effort, just tell them that you are not interested and send them on their way.

It is also a valid point that in terms of ecclesiastical tradition they have nothing in common with the Arians of antiquity. Theodoric would have done worse than sending them on their way if they had knocked on his door. The Biblical translation of Wulfilas is not a Gothic New World version. The Arians, bad as their heresy was, were not as far from ecclesiastical tradition as the JayDubs.

Stephen

Funny - I thought your second message - made more sense.


(just joking)
-ray

I have an interesting twist on this. I'm a former JW. I've also studied world religions. The JW perception of God is more like Islamic perception of God than the Catholic. Muslims don't consider God to be a spirit. The JWs Have an Islamic style trinity (not trinity but duality+Jesus) God the Father and Holy Spitit=Islamic style God. Jesus is left over as a prophet or the son of Jehovah God. JWs call him God's son, but treat him the way Muslims treat a prophet.
This is a core of thier confusion.

Thier biggest problem is that they believe themselves to be the one true religion. If there are any other religions following Jesus then they make themselves a false Christ-And decline from there.

Richard - my hat is off to you - for sperating. While not even having been a JW myself I am familar with some pople who were and they now assit others who want out.

God himself must have assited you!

-ray

Thier biggest problem is that they believe themselves to be the one true religion.

PRIDE COMES BEFORE THE FALL!

Dear Friends,

In a homily my parish priest said that Islam is where Arianism found its home.

That thought caught me off guard.
What do you folks think?

Peace in Christ Jesus,

Paul

I transfered my last post to Faith and Worship.

Paul

Brothers and sisters, there is no mercy in talking and discussing with JW, but prayers and fasting. Only God can open their stone harts and their blind eyes.

Lots of prayers and fasting on behalf of the blind. I was Seventh Day Adventist once, and as Saul was for The Way, so was I for the Orthodoxy. I did not, however, see the light and became blind, but something happened and I read the History of the Church by Eusebius and there you go.

Do not engage in polemics with Sectarian spoeakers, but pray and fast for them. Only dear Lord can help them.

God bless.

P.S.
Be very kind to them, and love them more than you love your own. It is a grat power of love.

Dear Orthodoxos,

Welcome, (albeit belated!) to the forum!

Your post was very, very beautiful.

If you don't mind, I would like to ask what you were before becoming Seventh Day Adventist (or were you born into it). What were the reasons for you joining? I am always fascinated with people's faith journeys...Do you like being Orthodox? What jurisdiction do you belong to?

Sorry for the barrage of questions.

Thanks!
In Christ,
Alice

Praise God!

I agree with Alice. Would you kindly share more.

Pani Rose

Welcome Orthodoxos,
Maybe now you will read the history and the fathers on the Papacy.
Stephanos I