Question on the Word in John

[Katzpur]

Of course @Katzpur, I'd be happy to clarify.

The word "being" is from the Greek ousia and can also be translated into English as 'essence' or 'essential substance/nature' (i.e. some renderings of the Nicene Creed in English have, "consubstantial with the Father" rather than "of one Being with" but they really mean the same thing).

"Person" is from the Greek hypostasis and can also mean 'underlying substance' but the sense in which Nicene'rs use it (the Trinitarian formula "three hypostases in one ousia") is that 'ousia' is the general whilst 'hypostasis' is the particular. So, 'ousia' can be taken to mean the essential essence and nature of something, whereas 'hypostasis' can be taken to mean the individual relation of something to another. Likewise, the 'Trinity' means that there are three distinct relations within one single divine Being - or rather, "three actions".

Indeed, 'person' (hypostasis) was first used in the context of Greek drama to refer to the 'relations' between different roles played by the one actor in a play. It doesn't mean what the English language implies with regards 'personhood' (i.e. individual centres of consciousness disembodied from one another). So, there aren't three individuals or gods or properties who make up God for Trinitarian Christians like myself. Nor is it 'modalism' because the three modes of being, actions or relations are noninterchangeable and distinctive without introducing any division into the Godhead.

'Being' refers to what God is (one essence/substance/reality/isness), whereas 'person' refers to who God is (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in relation to both Himself and His creation. Thus, Nicene Christians say that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Really, its a 'dynamic' and 'relational' understanding of God's eternal and immutable being (which is One).

A complicated, mysterious and indeed "mystical" doctrine no doubt, but its what we believe.

Thanks, Vouthon. Do you think it is possible to understand these concepts without having an understanding of Greek philosophical thought? I really struggle with making sense of all this. Prior to when Greek philosophy was used to explain God, how do you think the early Judeo-Christians got their heads all of this?

 

[Terry Sampson]

I fussed with it until I came up with that answer (with help from a fellow Jew ). That's the answer: how can anything be with God? Either it's God or not. If it's not, then what are you (not necessarily you you, but anyone in general) saying? That God is not all that there is?

I have some ideas that I was going to run by @Ehav4Ever (which I still haven't done).

 

[Vouthon]

Thanks, Vouthon. Do you think it is possible to understand these concepts without having an understanding of Greek philosophical thought? I really struggle with making sense of all this.

Certainly, the New Testament authors - and their successors in Jewish Christianity - expressed this without recourse to Greek philosophical categories in a Hebraic framework (through the biblical concept of hokhmah, Wisdom and other antecedents in the Second Temple era).

However, most Christians by the late second - fifth centuries were Gentile and predominantly Greek-speaking (indeed Jewish Christianity seems to have died out entirely by around the late fourth century CE). As such, they (we?) naturally had recourse to the developed language of philosophy (Platonism and Aristotelianism) to try and 'scientifically' (in the ancient sense) express this mysterious doctrine of the unicity of God.

This was the language these Fathers spoke and reasoned in, and most Christians down the centuries have found their formulations useful in helping us to engage with this mystery of the divine nature.

But, certainly, it doesn't have to be expressed that way. Its just become normative for many Christians (on account of both being Gentile and from cultures heavily shaped in their foundations by the civilisation of ancient Greece/Rome).

 

[Rival]

Thanks, Vouthon. Do you think it is possible to understand these concepts without having an understanding of Greek philosophical thought? I really struggle with making sense of all this. Prior to when Greek philosophy was used to explain God, how do you think the early Judeo-Christians got their heads all of this?

I don't suppose they did. Pauline Christianity came out of a largely already Helleno-Jewish culture; they used these concepts so they would be understood, as well as written in Greek.

 

[Harel13]

Certainly, the New Testament authors - and their successors in Jewish Christianity - expressed this without recourse to Greek philosophical categories in a Hebraic framework (through the biblical concept of hokhmah, Wisdom and other antecedents in the Second Temple era).

It was a simpler time.

 

[Vouthon]

I don't suppose they did. Pauline Christianity came out of a largely already Helleno-Jewish culture; they used these concepts so they would be understood, as well as written in Greek.

I would say, yes and no. Hellenistic Judaism was Jewish in 'culture' but not so much in theology (where it became a bit syncretistic with Greek thought). It was certainly a bold variation of Jewish thought but it still resisted Greek polytheism, idolatry and the like.

Paul inhabited both a Hellenist Jewish and Hebraic (Pharisaical) world and thus we find elements of both 'dimensions' of Second Temple Judaism in his thought.

But nowhere in the New Testament is the language of "ousia (being)" and "hypostasis" (relations) used. It just isn't and all NT scholars concede this. You just won't find it in the NT because they didn't rely upon these Greek philosophical categories but rather more Hebraic ones from the LXX and the like (prior to Paul's conversion, all the first Christians were Galilean and Judean Jews from Israel itself, not diaspora 'Hellenized' Jews. So the 'core' of early Christianity in Jesus and the first apostles isn't actually Hellenist).

Its why we don't find a 'doctrine' of Trinitarian categories specifically in the NT but we do find a 'nucleus' of ideas that are foundational to it.

 

[Katzpur]

However, most Christians by the late second - fifth centuries were Gentile and predominantly Greek-speaking (indeed Jewish Christianity seems to have died out entirely by around the late fourth century CE). As such, they (we?) naturally had recourse to the developed language of philosophy (Platonism and Aristotelianism) to try and 'scientifically' (in the ancient sense) express this mysterious doctrine of the unicity of God.

You know, I like you a lot, @Vouthon, but this is kind of why I can't get on board with the creeds. I feel a greater kindship to the Jewish-Christian community than I do to the later version. To me, all of this terminology makes it more difficult to relate to God than easier. But, if it works for you, I'm glad.

 

[Vouthon]

You know, I like you a lot, @Vouthon, but this is kind of why I can't get on board with the creeds. I feel a greater kindship to the Jewish-Christian community than I do to the later version. To me, all of this terminology makes it more difficult to relate to God than easier. But, if it works for you, I'm glad.

Very fair and I understand your position (and like you a lot as well @Katzpur as you know ).

In the end, it comes down to what one finds to cohere with their own conception of the Godhead / what manner of expressing it 'fits' with a person's conscience. The later creeds and the developed philosophical language they rely upon to 'express' the divine mystery will not suit everyone (although, they have satisfied most Christians down the years IMHO) and so that's why other forms of Christianity have since developed outside the 'Nicene' category in more recent times to account for this (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS/Mormons, the Christadelphians, the Oneness Pentecostals etc.)

And I say, each to their own!

 

[Ehav4Ever]

This may be the most problematic part of the verse: How can something be "with" God?

In order to see where the problems are you would have to take the Hebrew text of the Torah and analyze the words used based on their Shoresh. (three letter roots). That is ignore how the translations into English, including ones done by fellow Jews, try to tranlate it into English. Go strictly by the Hebrew and even use the Aramaic translation of Onkelos and it will become clear what the problem is with the John 1, as it is written in Greek and also conceptually.

The next step is to go through information found among the oldest Jewish communities, the Karaites, and the Samaritans. These are the oldest groups who can trace themselves biologically and historically back to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Thus, if anyone has the concept correctly and they still exist you are only going to find it among one of these three Israeli/Jewish groups.

 

[Harel13]

In order to see where the problems are you would have to take the Hebrew text of the Torah and analyze the words used based on their Shoresh. (three letter roots). That is ignore how the translations into English, including ones done by fellow Jews, try to tranlate it into English. Go strictly by the Hebrew and even use the Aramaic translation of Onkelos and it will become clear what the problem is with the John 1, as it is written in Greek and also conceptually.

The next step is to go through information found among the oldest Jewish communities, the Karaites, and the Samaritans. These are the oldest groups who can trace themselves biologically and historically back to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Thus, if anyone has the concept correctly and they still exist you are only going to find it among one of these three Israeli/Jewish groups.

Eh...my question was basically rhetorical.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Eh...my question was basically rhetorical.

Rhetorical in the sense that you are looking to express in terms intended to persuade or impress? Or Rhetorical in the sense (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information?

 

[Harel13]

Rhetorical in the sense that you are looking to express in terms intended to persuade or impress? Or Rhetorical in the sense (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information?

Statements such as these are usually intended to persuade so I don't see the difference between the two options. In any case, I further explained here, a few posts later:

I fussed with it until I came up with that answer (with help from a fellow Jew ). That's the answer: how can anything be with God? Either it's God or not. If it's not, then what are you (not necessarily you you, but anyone in general) saying? That God is not all that there is?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Statements such as these are usually intended to persuade so I don't see the difference between the two options. In any case, I further explained here, a few posts later:

I guess what I am asking is: is your question directed towards Christians for them to answer a question you have about a text they accept as truthful and valid or for them to consider that what they believe isn't logical? Further to the first part, is your question how it is that the author of John could have come to the conclusion to write such as statement as appears in John 1?

 

[Harel13]

I guess what I am asking is: is your question directed towards Christians for them to answer a question you have about a text they accept as truthful and valid or for them to consider that what they believe isn't logical? Further to the first part, is your question how it is that the author of John could have come to the conclusion to write such as statement as appears in John 1?

My "question" was actually an answer to a question directed at me:

@Harel13
Out of curiosity, do you think the following statement could be conceivable within Judaism and, if so, how would you explain it if you read it?

• In the beginning was the Shekhina, and the Shekhina was with God, and the Shekhina was God.

Answer:

This may be the most problematic part of the verse: How can something be "with" God?

I was just curious to see whether or not you might be able to handle an alternative to "the Word".
Don't fuss with it.

I fussed with it until I came up with that answer (with help from a fellow Jew ). That's the answer: how can anything be with God? Either it's God or not. If it's not, then what are you (not necessarily you you, but anyone in general) saying? That God is not all that there is?

As you will see, if you take the time to glance at my OP in the thread, the "question" I posed, not even as a question but as an answer in the form of a rhetorical question, actually doesn't have anything to do with that OP.
There's nothing to read into it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

My "question" was actually an answer to a question directed at me:

Answer:

As you will see, if you take the time to glance at my OP in the thread, the "question" I posed, not even as a question but as an answer in the form of a rhetorical question, actually doesn't have anything to do with that OP.
There's nothing to read into it.

Now I completely understand the issue. From my humble personal opinion, the disconnect is going to be 1) in the use of translation to answer the question that you were presented with and also 2) and not addressing the invalid (Torah wise) nature of the entire text of the gospel of John.

Maybe these two points were addressed already in the thread but just in skimming the first and last part that is where I see the biggest rift of understanding that is going to happen. I.e. I think that what is being searched for is a way to try and make John work in a Torah based way, when reality it cannot.

 

[Clear]

@Vouthon, would you mind explaining to me your understanding of the difference between the words "Being" and "Person"?

Of course @Katzpur, I'd be happy to clarify.

The word "being" is from the Greek ousia and can also be translated into English as 'essence' or 'essential substance/nature' (i.e. some renderings of the Nicene Creed in English have, "consubstantial with the Father" rather than "of one Being with" but they really mean the same thing).

"Person" is from the Greek hypostasis and can also mean 'underlying substance' but the sense in which Nicene'rs use it (the Trinitarian formula "three hypostases in one ousia") is that 'ousia' is the general whilst 'hypostasis' is the particular. So, 'ousia' can be taken to mean the essential essence and nature of something, whereas 'hypostasis' can be taken to mean the individual relation of something to another. Likewise, the 'Trinity' means that there are three distinct relations within one single divine Being - or rather, "three actions".

Indeed, 'person' (hypostasis) was first used in the context of Greek drama to refer to the 'relations' between different roles played by the one actor in a play. It doesn't mean what the English language implies with regards 'personhood' (i.e. individual centres of consciousness disembodied from one another). So, there aren't three individuals or gods or properties who make up God for Trinitarian Christians like myself. Nor is it 'modalism' because the three modes of being, actions or relations are noninterchangeable and distinctive without introducing any division into the Godhead.

'Being' refers to what God is (one essence/substance/reality/isness), whereas 'person' refers to who God is (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in relation to both Himself and His creation. Thus, Nicene Christians say that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Really, its a 'dynamic' and 'relational' understanding of God's eternal and immutable being (which is One).

A complicated, mysterious and indeed "mystical" doctrine no doubt, but its what we believe.

Thanks, Vouthon. Do you think it is possible to understand these concepts without having an understanding of Greek philosophical thought? I really struggle with making sense of all this. Prior to when Greek philosophy was used to explain God, how do you think the early Judeo-Christians got their heads all of this?

Certainly, the New Testament authors - and their successors in Jewish Christianity - expressed this without recourse to Greek philosophical categories in a Hebraic framework (through the biblical concept of hokhmah, Wisdom and other antecedents in the Second Temple era).

However, most Christians by the late second - fifth centuries were Gentile and predominantly Greek-speaking (indeed Jewish Christianity seems to have died out entirely by around the late fourth century CE). As such, they (we?) naturally had recourse to the developed language of philosophy (Platonism and Aristotelianism) to try and 'scientifically' (in the ancient sense) express this mysterious doctrine of the unicity of God.

This was the language these Fathers spoke and reasoned in, and most Christians down the centuries have found their formulations useful in helping us to engage with this mystery of the divine nature.

But, certainly, it doesn't have to be expressed that way. Its just become normative for many Christians (on account of both being Gentile and from cultures heavily shaped in their foundations by the civilisation of ancient Greece/Rome).

Hi @Katzpur


I feel for the confusion investigators and non historians have for philosophical and creedal descriptions of the relationship between God and the messiah developed by the various later Christian movements. I want to make a much simpler point regarding ουσια (ousia)

Christians did not invent a vocabulary but used words in common language initially. They did change the meaning of words to their own use. For example, later Christian movements referred to the word “create” as meaning "making something from nothing" (when it referred to God’s action). This was a meaning it never had among common usage.

Ουσια similarly, did not refer to personal characteristics such as some complicated “essence”, but instead referred to land based property. That is, one’s estate or position. For example, when the prodigal son asks his father “Father, give me the portion of ουσιας that falleth to me” in luke 15:12, the son is referring to “goods” or “estate” or “position”. In this case, that which is owed him by virtue of his inheritance (though a manager could also claim the ουσια, or goods that were due him as well). This ties into the early Christian theme of the messiah being the “heir” of his father (as well as others who become heirs) of the Fathers ουσια or “estate” in heaven or those who become “Godlike” in Dead Sea Scroll texts.

This base meaning was not yet complicated by later philosophical religious usage of the triune theory. Even the later borrowing of this word for “essence” or “being” doesn’t shed this base implication that it still implies the type of life or conditions surrounding the life a “being”. For example, πανω στην ουσια refers to “The prime of life”, referring to the characteristics of the life and not the “essence often described in later philosophical or religious theories.

Similarly, υποστασις (hypostasis) meant one’s effects or property, land, estate, etc. It came to be connected with a business transaction, and could certainly have similar meaning to a covenant in religious parlance. In such a connection it has been used to indicate the actual documents of ownership of property. However, in all such cases it was associated with the conditions and promises connected with possessions (or future possessions). Thus, it’s usage in Hebrews 11:1 (Εστιν δε πιστις ελπιζομενων υποστασις...” "Faith is the assurance (i.e. "title"/"Deed"/Assurance...) of things hoped for... ) refers to the concept of Faith as a “deed” or “title” or business document that guarantees or promises “things hoped for”.

Such words were, in their early usage, before the triune theory was developed, not particularly complex.

Good luck coming to your own models regarding these things.

Clear
τωτζεισιω

 

[YoursTrue]

John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.

In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began. Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.

I hope this makes sense...

It makes sense that "in the beginning" refers to time. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[YoursTrue]

John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.

In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began. Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.

I hope this makes sense...

I'd like to understand this better. Genesis says "in the beginning" and relates it to the origin of the universe with the earth. Yes, it is sure that God is (was) there before the "beginning." Can I understand it? No, I cannot, because I have a finite mind due to my existence. I know for sure (yes, I do <g>) that 'I' have a beginning. So since I know and believe I have a beginning, although unbeknownst to me when it happened (I was not aware), I am quite sure, now that I have reached an age of understanding, that God had (has) no beginning. Therefore, 'in the beginning' does not mean that God had a beginning.

 

[Harel13]

Therefore, 'in the beginning' does not mean that God had a beginning.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I have some ideas that I was going to run by @Ehav4Ever (which I still haven't done).

Hello Terry. There a group of videos I did that may help in this conversation. A few of them cover the specific example of what is found in John 1.

Debunking Missionaries