Mehr Licht
Ave Sophia
Arius lived between 256 – 336 AD though. Some of the earlier witness in the writings of the pre-nicene fathers (like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen among others) quote it as God rather than a god.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arius lived between 256 – 336 AD though. Some of the earlier witness in the writings of the pre-nicene fathers (like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen among others) quote it as God rather than a god.
Even Iraneus made the distinction. The Trinitarian authorities who try to use these Church Fathers to make their point are likely hoping no one actually reads what they said on the issue."We next notice John's use of the article ["the"] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article ["the"], and in some he omits it. He adds the article ["the"] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article ["the"], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article ["the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article ["the"] not without it, so also "the" logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence "the" logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know You the only true God;" but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply "the" theos but rather [just] theos. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos (gods) beside Him, of whom "the" theos (God) is "the" theos (God), as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became (gods), for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made theos gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is ho theos ("the god"), and those who are formed after Him are (gods), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the ho logos ("the word") of ho theos ("the god") , who was in the beginning, and who by being with "the" theos ("God") is at all times theos ("god"), not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II,
2.) While Trinitarian apologists will quote Origen when they find his sayings useful for their own agendas, they tend to avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen is very insistent the absence of the definite article in the second instance of the word theos at John 1:1 is indeed extremely significant. And who would comprehend the Greek language of John's gospel better than an expert in the language of the day? Notice that Origen distinguishes between "the god" or "God" as the creator of all things, and his Word which he does not consider to be the creator, and which he does not consider to be "God" but "god" in the sense that the Word is deity by essence but not "God" by identity. This is precisely what was taught by the early Christian writers, Tatian, Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian although Trinitarians will attempt to tell us otherwise. Also take careful note of Origen's interpretation of John 17:3, "that they may now you the only true God" as a reference to the Father alone, and excludes Jesus from that title. Now let us be careful about what Origen is not saying. He is not saying that Jesus is "a God" or "a god" in addition to the Father. Origen is saying, along with all his contemporaries, that the divinity, deity, divine nature (the "what") of the Word is derived from the person "God," but only the Father should be identified as "God" ("who"). Heis not saying that the Word is "the God" that created the universe; in fact he is insisting the opposite is true (the Word is not the Creator but "of" the Creator). Origen is saying that the Word is qualitatively divine ("god") because he is "of God" the quantitative person and derives his deity from "The Deity," the Creator of all things who is the Father. Origen understands that the Word has a God but the Father does not have a God and derives his deity from no one but himself. God Most High, the Father, is "autodeity", or "autogod" which is a fancy way of saying he is independently deity in and of himself. But Origen says that the divinity of the Word is not derived from himself but is dependent on the Father's deity and this is why the definite article is absent in the second occurrence of theos at John 1:1. The Word of God is not "The Divinity" by identity ("GOD"), but divine in essence because the Word is "of The Divinity", that is, "of God" but is not "The God." Put another way, he is saying that the Word is divinity of the Divinity or god of God or deity of the Deity but is not himself "The Deity," the entity we know as the Creator, God Most High. Origen emphasizes his point by quoting John 17:3 where Jesus indicates his Father is the only true "Deity", that is, "The Deity" and "The God" by identity as opposed to simply being "deity" in essence. Essentially, what Origen is getting at is that the definite article is used to indicate identity and is always and only used to refer to the Creator who he understands to be the Father who created alone through (by means of) his Word, and the absence of the article indicates "what" the Word is to distinguish "who" the Word is from God - the Word is deity of The Deity but is not The Deity. The Word is "what" of "the Who."
Book 2, Ch. 2:
"We next notice John's use of the article ["the" ho or o in the NT Greek when used with theos or logos] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it.
"He adds the article to the Logos [ho logos: 'the Word' or 'the Reason'], but to the name [title] of God [theos] he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [ho or 'the' in English], when the name [title] of God [ho theos] refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named [theos, 'a god']. .... As the [theos] who is over all is [theos] with the article [ho theos] not without it [theos], so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason [logos] which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. ".... God [ho theos] on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, (7) "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God [Autotheos] is made God [theos ?] by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply [ho theos] (with the article), but rather [theos] (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God [ho theos] is the God, as it is written, (8) "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God [ho theos] in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype." - p. 323, Vol. 10, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, (Bk2, Ch.2, Commentary on John
That in now way rules out the divinity of the Logos though. Anyone who reveals god fulfills an angelic function. The humanity of Christ fulfilled an angelic function.Justin Martyr flat out called Jesus an angel.
What translators "did it right" in your opinion? Is nearly every translator in on a conspiracy to misrepresent Origen?Once again, you're using a Trinitarian-based English translation, unless you can prove he used an article before God, he was clearly saying "A god".
What translators "did it right" in your opinion? Is nearly every translator in on a conspiracy to misrepresent Origen?
If you notice my post was filled with references to the writings of Origen. I don't see how I've been ignoring what he said?Now you can ignore what Origen himself says about it like in the quotes I provided,
If you notice my post was filled with references to the writings of Origen. I don't see how I've been ignoring what he said?
The last two quotes I provided are matched word for word in the translation you linked too.
I think I understand what you are getting at. Your saying that the Father is called ho theos while the son is simply called theos and that Origen was pointing to this difference ? I don't see how this in anyway shows that Origen is denying the divinity of the the Logos though. If he didn't accept the divinity of the logos there must be a really thorough going mistranslation conspiracy that goes well beyond failing to put an "a" in front of God in his translations too. How should "there never was a time he was not" be properly translated for example? Or his statement that in the "Trinity there is no greater or lesser" or even that those who say there was a time when the Word was not are "uttering impiety?"
Did you copy and paste that from here?:
Yes, the bracket stuff is his emphasis. Regardless though, Origin was making clear that there is a difference between The God and "a god". Thus, the point is clear that he himself was aware of this difference and the translators who write his anarthrous use of Theos as "God" are in fact being a bit dishonest about what he likely meant, unless you can prove with the Greek that he did use the article in those cases, along with Irenaeus and Justin, they were all saying "a god" in those cases, whether you think that has anything to do with his "Divinity". I'm not saying he agreed with the specifics of what I agree with in that the Logos at one point did not exist, but he didn't regard them as the same being but different persons, or anything close resembling the actual Trinity, and we can see that he didn't call Jesus/the Logos "God". As for the word "Divinity", that's a matter of debate because I believe "angels" have "Divinity" in that they are called "gods". The question of what exactly "Divinity" means is in dispute.
Certainly if you are saying that he didn't teach the same trinitarian theology as say the Capadocians who were influential regarding how these things are often understood today then I can agree. I think he does make statements that are very subordinationist sounding (though at times he seems to contridict himself and say the opposite). But the idea that the word is divine is so commonly stated in so many numerous ways that I have trouble believing they are all just translation errors. It's not like I've only picked up a book or two on the subject either. I grab up whatever I can get by and on Origen. This week alone I'm reading three books on the subject - Robert E Heines translation of his commentaries on Genesis and Exodus, Hans Urs Van Balthasars anthology of his writtings titled "Spirit and Fire", and Edward Moore's "Origen of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessors." (a book about Origen but it includes a good deal of translations of his statements) I've found some pretty clear references to Christs divinity in all three so far.
Can you point me to an accurate translation his works ? If you are saying that all these various statements I've referenced are mistranslations you must have an accurate translation you are comparing it with I would assume?
I will look to see if there's any lesser known objective translations, but hopefully you can admit that the scholars you are referring to are all Trinitarians. As others have pointed out, you will often see Trinitarians translating things to a Trinitarian spin very often, if not always, when the issue is at stake. A perfect example being all the "traditional" versions of John 1:1c (and 10:33) that say "word was God", even when Wallace, Goodspeed, and Moffatt have all said that "Divine" would be better.
For those who insist on Colwell's rule, it's not really a rule, and it doesn't apply in numerous places where its own criteria should, and most people misapply Colwell's rule to begin with. Colwell even said that its based on "Context" and thus, purely subjective (i.e. whenever Trintiarians want it to apply). It is an unprecedented rule that never appeared until the mid-early 1900s and probably in reaction to the numerous translations coming out in the early 20th century that said "a god".(12) A.N. Jannaris Ph D, “[A]nd was a god" A.N. Jannaris Lecturer of Post-Classical and Modern Greek - at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland
“Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft”, (German periodical) 1901
I would suggest Jesus is God! - John 1:1
This article breaks it down a bit more but there is much dispute over this verse in that it was translated "a god" rather than just "God". It completely changes what is being said.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
—New American Standard
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
—New World Translation
Anyway, this article is good.