Understanding John 1:14

[Van]

I never claimed the translators were wrong. You've invented this red herring in order to mask your ignorance of Greek. I simply claimed you were wrong as it pertains to John 1:14. I pointed out why in certain cases "sent from" could work. But John 1:14 is not one of those cases. Grammar is contextual too. You've proven, though, that you have no basis by which to evaluate why any translator would translate certain words certain ways based on the grammar of a passage. You've proven that you have no basis by which to evaluate my, or anyone else's, argument when it comes to Greek. You've proven that you "know no Greek," but you've said that about yourself many times in the past.

What you're doing in consulting a lexicon, without being able to work the grammar of a passage, is a form of the "lexical fallacy." Just because "sent from" can be a valid translation/understanding in one case does not mean it can be a valid translation/understanding in another. The grammar of a given passage works to dictate the understanding of the given words. Just as the Mark 14:43 can be translated as "sent from" because of the use of the participial form of the verb παραγίνομαι, the John 1:14 cannot be translated as "sent from" because παρα is most closely related to the noun "glory."

Now, I'm sure you'll just resort to repeating yourself, writing things more loudly, etc., proving yet again that you are unable to converse with the Greek.

The Archangel

One falsehood after another. You claimed para could not be translated as sent from because of some Gnostic knowledge of Greek grammar I did not possess. An absolute and profound fiction.

I have pointed out translating a noun as a verb is wrong, so yet another absolute and profound falsehood.

Next you drag out the lexical fallacy, yet argon changing the subject from the topic.

Next did I say one word meaning was intended in every usage when more than one meaning is historical? Nope, so yet another absolute and profound falsehood.

Para is most closely related to the Father, as the Father sent something.

You have dishonored yourself, Sir.

 

[The Archangel]

One falsehood after another. You claimed para could not be translated as sent from because of some Gnostic knowledge of Greek grammar I did not possess. An absolute and profound fiction.

I have pointed out translating a noun as a verb is wrong, so yet another absolute and profound falsehood.

Next you drag out the lexical fallacy, yet argon changing the subject from the topic.

Next did I say one word meaning was intended in every usage when more than one meaning is historical? Nope, so yet another absolute and profound falsehood.

Para is most closely related to the Father, as the Father sent something.

You have dishonored yourself, Sir.

To take your "dishonoring" accusations back to the elementary school playground. What is plain to see is that I have explained everything in detail, and yet you have shown no acumen to engage with the material I posted simply because you can't. If you quit projecting long enough you might learn something. Your efforts here to prove your point are quite pathetic. And now, as you turn to the ad hominem, you continue to fulfill what I said you'd do....

<shakes head...>

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

One falsehood after another. You claimed para could not be translated as sent from because of some Gnostic knowledge of Greek grammar I did not possess. An absolute and profound fiction.

I have pointed out translating a noun as a verb is wrong, so yet another absolute and profound falsehood.

Empty accusations are all you have.

Next you drag out the lexical fallacy, yet argon changing the subject from the topic.

I have no earthly idea what "argon changing" is supposed to mean.

Next did I say one word meaning was intended in every usage when more than one meaning is historical? Nope, so yet another absolute and profound falsehood.

Para is most closely related to the Father, as the Father sent something.

Grammar lesson: "Father" is the object of the preposition παρα. Grammatically it is not doing what you think it is doing.

The Archangel

 

[Alan Gross]

Yet another subject change question from a Calvinist set on derailing discussion of John 1:14

JesusFan is a 'real' Christian ? Cool.

 

[Alan Gross]

CALVINISTS! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

Thank God for real Christians.

 

[Van]

To take your "dishonoring" accusations back to the elementary school playground. What is plain to see is that I have explained everything in detail, and yet you have shown no acumen to engage with the material I posted simply because you can't. If you quit projecting long enough you might learn something. Your efforts here to prove your point are quite pathetic. And now, as you turn to the ad hominem, you continue to fulfill what I said you'd do....

<shakes head...>

The Archangel

More addressing behavior and avoiding like the plague any useful on topic commentary. Every post has been to put forward absolute and profound falsehood. Para can be translated as sent by or sent away when the meaning is as in John 1:14

 

[The Archangel]

More addressing behavior and avoiding like the plague any useful on topic commentary. Every post has been to put forward absolute and profound falsehood. Para can be translated as sent by or sent away when the meaning is as in John 1:14

Nope. And... you must have missed this post:

To put a further point on the issue of how παρα should be translated in John 1:14...

If you look at John 1:6 we see this: Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης The ESV translates it as: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."

The passage is discussing John the Baptist. What we see is the phrase: "παρὰ θεοῦ." This is the preposition παρα plus the genitive. So, why is this properly translated as "Sent from God" and the παρὰ πατρός from John 1:14 not? Simple. In John 1:6 John uses the word ἀπεσταλμένος, which is the participial form of ἀποστέλλω, which is the verb "send."

So, in John 1:6 John includes the word "sent" separately from the παρα + genitive to convey the idea of the object being sent (in this case, John the Baptist). In John 1:14, however he only uses παρα + genitive, omitting "sent."

Now, as I've stated before, in the clause δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός from John 1:14 isn't discussing Jesus directly. The noun "δόξαν" (glory) is what is being discussed. Yes, it's talking about Jesus' glory. But the phrase isn't saying anything about Jesus being "sent from" God (other places in John 1 do that). What John is doing here is equating Jesus' glory with the glory of the Father Himself. This passage is a far deeper statement of Jesus' divinity (as someone who shares the glory of God) than Jesus simply being "sent from" God.

If the glory Jesus has is discussed as "sent from" God, then it was never Jesus' glory to begin with. So, Van's "translation" here denies Jesus' glory. Because... if Jesus' glory was sent from God (kind of like God's glory being "transferred to Moses" at Mt. Sinai), then Jesus is not divine. However, if Jesus' glory is "from" the Father (as in not "sent from") then the glory Jesus has is "as the glory of the Father Himself." So, Jesus shares the Father's glory, meaning that Jesus is divine--precisely because His glory and the Father's glory are the same. It is not because Jesus' glory is "sent from" God.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Maybe you missed this one, too:

Just because the NET translates something a particular way ,doesn't mean Dan Wallace translates it that way.

Here's what you're missing:

Here's the passage in Greek: Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος παραγίνεται Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα καὶ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων.

παρα + genitive is here (in bold), and it is translated by the ESV as "from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. The key here, though, isn't παρα, it's παραγίνομαι (Italics and underline above), which means "came."

Here's the full ESV translation (and I've kept the same bold, Italic, underline emphases for clarity): And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. (ESV)

The sentence here is "Judas came." From where did he come? "From the chief priests..... " "From" here is the most basic translation. Can "sent" be implied here? Yes, it can. Why? Because Judas came from somewhere. But the "sent" implied here comes from the verb "came," which here is taken as a passive." It is not because of the meaning of παρα itself.

The Archangel

 

[JesusFan]

Yet again you seem unable or unwilling to accept that son sometimes means something other than biological offspring. So sad.

I do not view jesus as being the Son of God as say a Muslim or Mormon does, as that would indeed be heresy, that God and Mary had to have sex, just saying that His sonship started in Incarnation, as before that was the Logos of God the father!

 

[Van]

I do not view jesus as being the Son of God as say a Muslim or Mormon does, as that would indeed be heresy, that God and Mary had to have sex, just saying that His sonship started in Incarnation, as before that was the Logos of God the father!

You can believe and proclaim obvious falsehood till the cows come home, Logos carries out the purpose of the Father from all eternity, and thus His "sonship" is from all eternity.

 

[Van]

John 1:14 (interpretative translation)
And Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity) became human (God incarnate), and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory (glory as the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep) as the uniquely divine Son sent from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1) Did anyone claim Logos is not the Second Person of the Trinity?
2) Did anyone claim became flesh does not mean became 100% human?
3) Did anyone claim the glory of Jesus is not as "the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God, and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep?
4) Yes some claimed being "monogenes" did not mean being "uniquely divine as God incarnate." But they were wrong.
5) Yes, one self proclaimed Greek grammar expert indicated the Greek preposition "para" could not be translated as "sent from!" But he was wrong according to several published translations which render "para" as sent from or sent by

Does anyone care to indicate what alternate or additional insights they have gleamed from study of John1:14?

 

[The Archangel]

4) Yes some claimed being "monogenes" did not mean being "uniquely divine as God incarnate." But they were wrong.
5) Yes, one self proclaimed Greek grammar expert indicated the Greek preposition "para" could not be translated as "sent from!" But he was wrong according to several published translations which render "para" as sent from or sent by

Both of these statements are still falsehoods on your part.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

John 1:14 (interpretative translation)
And Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity) became human (God incarnate), and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory (glory as the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep) as the uniquely divine Son sent from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1) Did anyone claim Logos is not the Second Person of the Trinity?
2) Did anyone claim became flesh does not mean became 100% human?
3) Did anyone claim the glory of Jesus is not as "the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God, and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep?
4) Yes some claimed being "monogenes" did not mean being "uniquely divine as God incarnate." But they were wrong.
5) Yes, one self proclaimed Greek grammar expert indicated the Greek preposition "para" could not be translated as "sent from!" But he was wrong according to several published translations which render "para" as sent from or sent by

Does anyone care to indicate what alternate or additional insights they have gleamed from their study of John1:14?

 

[The Archangel]

Saying something is false when it is not false is the stock and trade of false teachers. And when exposed, they claim they never said or implied such a thing. Go figure...

So, are you now calling me a "false teacher?"

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Saying something is false when it is not false is the stock and trade of false teachers. And when exposed, they claim they never said or implied such a thing. Go figure...

I haven't "said" it was false, I've demonstrated it to be so. You have never engaged with my posts here and here. You've just said (using your accusatory words) "taint so."

The Archangel

 

[Van]

In what manner was Christ "from" (para) the Father? If we let scripture explain scripture, then John 7:29 is on point:

“I do know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me.”​

So the idea of para in this usage is to be provided by the Father for His purpose.

 

[Van]

John 1:14 (interpretative translation)
And Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity) became human (God incarnate), and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory (glory as the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep) as the uniquely divine Son sent from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1) Did anyone claim Logos is not the Second Person of the Trinity?
2) Did anyone claim became flesh does not mean became 100% human?
3) Did anyone claim the glory of Jesus is not as "the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God, and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep?
4) Yes some claimed being "monogenes" did not mean being "uniquely divine as God incarnate." But they were wrong.
5) Yes, one self proclaimed Greek grammar expert indicated the Greek preposition "para" could not be translated as "sent from!" But he was wrong according to several published translations which render "para" as sent from or sent by

Does anyone care to indicate what alternate or additional insights they have gleamed from their study of John1:14?

 

[The Archangel]

You have demonstrated you are willing to post what you know is false to derail discussion. If the shoe fits...

So, you're calling me a liar? Show me where what I've posted is false.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

Why is "sent from" to be the preferred choice in understanding than just "from?" Because from might refer to being fathered in a created sense, rather than they actual meaning of sending the existing Logos for the Father's purpose.

 

[Van]

So, you're calling me a liar? Show me where what I've posted is false.

The Archangel

Folks, this poster is totally off topic, trying to make the topic either his purity or my malfeasance , rather than the study of John 1:14. Why he allowed to derail discussion with off topic posts is beyond me.

John 1:14 (interpretative translation)
And Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity) became human (God incarnate), and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory (glory as the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep) as the uniquely divine Son sent from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1) Did anyone claim Logos is not the Second Person of the Trinity?
2) Did anyone claim became flesh does not mean became 100% human?
3) Did anyone claim the glory of Jesus is not as "the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God, and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep?
4) Yes some claimed being "monogenes" did not mean being "uniquely divine as God incarnate." But they were wrong.
5) Yes, one self proclaimed Greek grammar expert indicated the Greek preposition "para" could not be translated as "sent from!" But he was wrong according to several published translations which render "para" as sent from or sent by

Does anyone care to indicate what alternate or additional insights they have gleamed from their study of John1:14?