"In passing, sophia, wisdom, is grammatically feminine in Greek, as is also Hebrew hochmah. But to anyone with even a slight knowledge of the languages, these are purely artificial grammatical genders, and have nothing whatever to do with sex or gender. Further, Christ is the wisdom of the Father, and He is not feminine" (William Most).
While I do not advocate all or the majority of his beliefs and ideas, here is a site that contains writings by Most: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/browse.cfm
Wednesday, October 02, 2024
Quote From William Most Dealing With Grammatical Gender
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)
https://justpaste.it/aisrx
https://docdro.id/5scufme
ἐγενήθη https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/1-30.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/luke/7-35.htm
https://www.sefaria.org/Proverbs.3.19?lang=bi
Proverbs 8:11 Cf. Proverbs 31:10
Logos and Memra - First century Christians section
https://www.academia.edu/39812028/Logos_and_Memra
Both of these links are full of garbage and not at all accurate information…
1 Peter 2:13 “kings” isn’t even a direct object of the verb
@T
The argument seems to hinge on the assertion that because theos lacks the definite article in John 1:1c, it should be translated as "a god" rather than "God." However, this interpretation misreads Koine Greek grammar and early Christian context. While the lack of the article MAY suggest an indefinite reading in SOME contexts, this is not an absolute rule. Greek syntax and context often dictate that an anarthrous noun (a noun without a definite article) should be understood qualitatively. For instance, "theos" in John 1:1c emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, not that the Word is a lesser god. Greek scholars, including Harner and Wallace, argue that this construction points to the Word possessing the very essence of deity.
John 1:1 is not a simple philosophical abstraction but is rooted in the monotheistic beliefs of early Christianity. While some interpret John 1:1 as suggesting a distinction between "God" (with the article) and "a god" (without the article), early Christian theology firmly rejected polytheism. This means that John was not introducing a separate deity but affirming the divinity of the Word in a monotheistic framework.
The qualitative understanding aligns with early Christian teachings that Jesus shares in the divine nature but remains distinct in person from the Father. This was confirmed in early church councils, such as Nicaea, which affirmed that the Son is "begotten, not made" and is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.
The reference to the Logos' pre-human existence and divine nature is accurate. The use of terms like "only-begotten God" in some ancient manuscripts further emphasizes the unique status of Christ. However, this does not imply that Christ is a lesser deity. Instead, it reflects the Son's eternal relationship with the Father, co-sharing in the same divine nature.
It’s true that the term logos was present in Greek philosophy, particularly among the Stoics. However, early Christian use of the term was rooted in Jewish thought and Scripture, not Greek dualism. John adapted logos to express profound theological truths about Christ’s divinity, emphasizing both His pre-existence and His role in creation as the incarnate Word of God.
In summary, John 1:1c, when understood in its historical, grammatical, and theological context, does not support the translation "a god" but rather affirms the divinity of the Word. The qualitative understanding better captures the full theological intent of the passage, aligning with early Christian beliefs about the nature of Christ.
“ This means that John was not introducing a separate deity ” - how does “a god” affirm a seperate deity?
Especially when there was a place for other other divine beings alongside God.. who were not to be worshipped
Polytheism is the WORSHIP or honour of multiple Gods via human self interest.. NOT a belief in other divine beings
As I have said before you have to twist a lot of meanings and write a lot of garbage before you come to your conclusions..
You don’t need to bother calling on “metaphorical gods” either because from my research this is not an actual credible argument… the church fathers would agree with me. + Jesus’ whole argument had nothing to do with his divinity it was about being the messiah or Son of God ( which doesn’t mean he is “God” as he is neither the trinity nor the essence itself)
Seeing as John 1:1 has been litigated often on this forum, I am not going to allow an extended discussion of that verse. This thread was about grammatical gender, not John 1:1c. Thank you.
@Anon
https://justpaste.it/g9t9p
John 1:1 has been over-litigated all over the place. And it seems that most roads come back to it when using circular arguments.
Nics, https://youtu.be/2gvsLBl3m4E?si=Dph0E78zzxrhkDYN
Wisdom in proverbs 8 is probably feminine, as its contrasted with the strange woman from the previous chapter. Jesus was a man, the preexistent logos was not biological animal and thus not sexed. Any gendered language used is thus metaphorical.
@Duncan
...regarding John 17:11:
https://justpaste.it/h4pcq
Post a Comment