For an Answer Home Mars Hill  Index Bibliography Glossary
The Bible Gateway The Blue Letter Bible The Greek New Testament (NA26) Greek & Hebrew Lexicons

powered by FreeFind

Mars Hill  Apologetic Discussions



<< Previous Post

Response >>

Robert to BBS on the Divine Nature

I wished to respond to Bible Scholar in some detail, but decided to begin by establishing some basic definitions, particularly with regard to the Divine Nature, which was a phrase used in Bible Scholar's article, and which I believe to be central to a proper understanding of John 1:1.


Hi, Bible-Scholar,

You raise some interesting issues in your article on the Proper Translation of John 1:1 that I'd like to discuss with you.  I appreciate the effort you put into researching your article, particularly the analysis of the Greek, and the use of scholarly citation to support your views.

I'd like to address the specifics of your article in a subsequent post, time permitting.  But first, I'd like to present you with a syllogism I posted on the Trinity Board awhile back.  I think it will help clarify the issue of God's Nature, which is at the heart of your article (and the scholars you quoted), and indeed, is the very foundation of the differences in our views regarding the relationship between God and Jesus.

God's Nature is Unique
Jesus possess the nature of God
Therefore, Jesus is God.

Now, to dismantle this syllogism, one would need to disprove either the major or minor premises, or demonstrate a logical disjunction between the premises and the conclusion (an undistributed middle, for example).

Now, if I'm reading the conclusion of your article correctly, you would not dispute the minor premise (Jesus possess the nature of God).  In your most recent post to Jeff Nino, you state:  "God is not a class of beings  God is not a group of beings, He is a single personal entity ... monotheism."  Now, if God is a SINGLE personal entity (i.e., one of a kind), then logically His Nature must be unique to Him.  If so, the major premise is not in dispute.

So, can you demonstrate a logical disjunction between the premises and the conclusion, or do you want to clarify what you mean by a "single personal entity" who is NOT class or group of beings, yet who (according to you) shares His nature with a class or group of beings (or at least with one other being, namely the Son)?

In Christ the Victor,


<< Previous Post

Response >>