What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Commentary on John 1:1.

CherubRam

CherubRam

Judaic Christian
Member
Commentary on John 1:1.



Pantheion
Greek pantheion, from pan 'all' + theion 'Divine Eternal-s' (from theios 'divine.')
From Greek aion, meaning Eternal, for an infinite amount of time Pantheion: Pan/the/ion. All Divine Eternal-s. The word “All” makes it plural.

aeon or aion or eon
1. An immeasurably long period of time. From Greek, Aion, an infinitely long time.

Greek word TON and THEON.
From the Scripture4All program. Link: www.scripture4all.org/

The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "the only Divine Eternal." In English the word “one” can also be translated as “only.” TON: The only. THEON: Divine Eternal.

John 1:1
Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and Divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another Divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?


Theon and Theos
They both mean Divine, but in different cases. Theos is the nominative, Theon is accusative. Another form is Theou, which is genitive.

John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [τὸν θεὸν, (TON THEON) literally, the only Divine Eternal], and the Word was divine. [θεὸς].”

In the first instance (“the Word was with the only Divine Eternal”) it is in the accusative case and thus is spelled θεὸν [theon] But in the second occurrence it is in the nominative case, and so it is spelled θεὸς [theos]
Ton Theon was also applied to Zeus, meaning "The Only Divine Eternal."

Eon or Aeon; a very long time.
The word aeon, also spelled eon or æon, originally means "life", and / or "being", though it then tended to mean "age", "forever" or "for eternity". It is a Latin transliteration from the koine Greek word ὁ αἰών (ho aion), from the archaic αἰϝών (aiwon).

In Homer it typically refers to life or lifespan. Its latest meaning is more or less similar to the Sanskrit word kalpa and Hebrew word olam. A cognate Latin word aevum or aeuum (cf. αἰϝών) for "age" is present in words such as longevity.

Although the term aeon may be used in reference to a period of a billion years, its more common usage is for any long, indefinite, period.

Eternity or age
The Bible translation is a treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion. Both these words have similar meaning, and Young's Literal Translation renders them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-during”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternity, being translated as eternal, everlasting, forever, etc. However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion.
Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.

Proponents of Universal Reconciliation point out that this has significant implications for the problem of an eternal hell.

Contrast readings of Matthew 25:46 in well-known English translations with its rendering in Young's Literal Translation:
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during. (YLT)

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (NIV)

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (NASB)

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. (KJV)

And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life. (NWT)

The word "Divine" is a translation, and the word "god" is an interpretation. The reason the word "god" is an interpretation, is because it derived from the name of a Pagan god.



Additional Note.
Theosophy
Theosophy (from Greek θεοσοφία theosophia, from θεός theos, divine + σοφία sophia, wisdom; literally "divine wisdom")

The word theosophia appeared in both Greek and Latin in early Christian writings as a synonym for “theology”. The theosophoi are “those who know divine matters.”
 
CherubRam said:
Commentary on John 1:1.


Greek word TON and THEON.
From the Scripture4All program. Link: www.scripture4all.org/

The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "the only Divine Eternal." In English the word “one” can also be translated as “only.” TON: The only. THEON: Divine Eternal.

John 1:1
Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and Divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another Divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."
Click to expand...
Where is "a" supplied in English?

CherubRam said:
Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?
Click to expand...
Because it would be grammatically incorrect in English, or at a minimum, unnecessary.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past, that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that statement means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it was in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable, and they are one and the same, which is the error of Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. What it can only mean then, is that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."

There is only one understanding of this verse--the Word existed for eternity past in intimate relationship with another, who is God the Father (at a minimum), and the Word is divine in nature, making him also God.

We should also consider verses 2, 3, and 14:

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active communion with the Father.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.

John then makes it clear in verse 14 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That is, the Word, not the Father, entered into time--Greek for "become" is egeneto (same as "made" in verse 3)--and took on human flesh. This is all precisely what Paul is speaking of in Phil 2:5-8.

But, we should also consider John's reference to Gen 1:1 and note what else happens in that chapter.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
...
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

Clearly there is only one God. Interestingly, this one God uses plural personal pronouns of himself--"us" and "our"--to speak of creating humans. But when he actually does create man and woman, the pronouns become singular--"his" and "he." This, too, shows that there is plurality within the one God, so it is no surprise, indeed no coincidence, that John makes a reference to Gen 1:1 in John 1:1.

The incarnation is a mystery, but John clearly makes the case the Word had always existed before creation--absolute preexistence--with God and was divine in nature. He then entered time, taking on human flesh, completed the work he both came and was sent to do, and then was received back into glory.

Remember, this is John's introduction, the whole point of which is to introduce us to the Word that became flesh for the salvation of humans and the redemption of all creation. Everything else he says about the Son, Jesus, the Son of God, flows from this and cannot contradict it.
 
Free said:
Where is "a" supplied in English?


Because it would be grammatically incorrect in English, or at a minimum, unnecessary.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past, that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that statement means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it was in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable, and they are one and the same, which is the error of Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. What it can only mean then, is that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."

There is only one understanding of this verse--the Word existed for eternity past in intimate relationship with another, who is God the Father (at a minimum), and the Word is divine in nature, making him also God.

We should also consider verses 2, 3, and 14:

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active communion with the Father.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.

John then makes it clear in verse 14 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That is, the Word, not the Father, entered into time--Greek for "become" is egeneto (same as "made" in verse 3)--and took on human flesh. This is all precisely what Paul is speaking of in Phil 2:5-8.

But, we should also consider John's reference to Gen 1:1 and note what else happens in that chapter.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
...
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

Clearly there is only one God. Interestingly, this one God uses plural personal pronouns of himself--"us" and "our"--to speak of creating humans. But when he actually does create man and woman, the pronouns become singular--"his" and "he." This, too, shows that there is plurality within the one God, so it is no surprise, indeed no coincidence, that John makes a reference to Gen 1:1 in John 1:1.

The incarnation is a mystery, but John clearly makes the case the Word had always existed before creation--absolute preexistence--with God and was divine in nature. He then entered time, taking on human flesh, completed the work he both came and was sent to do, and then was received back into glory.

Remember, this is John's introduction, the whole point of which is to introduce us to the Word that became flesh for the salvation of humans and the redemption of all creation. Everything else he says about the Son, Jesus, the Son of God, flows from this and cannot contradict it.
Click to expand...
In the Hebrew language the English term "let us" is always AIT.

Royal or Majestic “we” in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"

It is I who did the talking to an audience.

And Genesis 1:27 clarifies immediately by saying, "And God created man in His image"

Thus, it is still Yahwah who is Elohiym, who created man.

The majestic plural, also called the royal plural, is the use of a plural word, such as the pronoun we or us, to refer to a single person. The majestic plural emphasizes a member of royalty, referring to himself, saying, “We” instead of “I.”

The ancient Hebrews used the majestic plural, and some examples are found in the Old Testament. But the construction is not unique to Hebrew language alone.

The reason for the majestic plural is to indicate greatness, power, and prestige. It is normally reserved for use by nobles, kings, popes, and other persons of high rank when speaking in an official capacity.

In the Bible, we find four verses in which God refers to Himself using plural pronouns. The most well-known passage is Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.’” See also Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8. The One God is speaking of Himself in plural form, us and our. This is a perfect example of the majestic plural. God’s divine greatness is emphasized by use of pronouns.
 
CherubRam said:
In the Hebrew language the English term "let us" is always AIT.

Royal or Majestic “we” in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"

It is I who did the talking to an audience.

And Genesis 1:27 clarifies immediately by saying, "And God created man in His image"

Thus, it is still Yahwah who is Elohiym, who created man.

The majestic plural, also called the royal plural, is the use of a plural word, such as the pronoun we or us, to refer to a single person. The majestic plural emphasizes a member of royalty, referring to himself, saying, “We” instead of “I.”

The ancient Hebrews used the majestic plural, and some examples are found in the Old Testament. But the construction is not unique to Hebrew language alone.

The reason for the majestic plural is to indicate greatness, power, and prestige. It is normally reserved for use by nobles, kings, popes, and other persons of high rank when speaking in an official capacity.

In the Bible, we find four verses in which God refers to Himself using plural pronouns. The most well-known passage is Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.’” See also Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8. The One God is speaking of Himself in plural form, us and our. This is a perfect example of the majestic plural. God’s divine greatness is emphasized by use of pronouns.
Click to expand...
Your analogy doesn't work. If you say to children, "Let us play soccer," then you're inviting the children to play soccer; you're speaking to more than one person for the purpose of engaging with those persons. It also doesn't address that the very next verse states that "God created man in his own image;" singular image of God. So, if God is talking to an audience about making man "in our image," he must be talking at least one other who isn't a creature, otherwise verses 26 and 27 are false.

This is part of what the Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament says:

"No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis, - an interpretation which comprehends in its deepest and most intensive form (God speaking of Himself and with Himself in the plural number, not reverentiae causa, but with reference to the fullness of the divine powers and essences which He possesses) the truth that lies at the foundation of the trinitarian view, viz., that the potencies concentrated in the absolute Divine Being are something more than powers and attributes of God; that they are hypostases, which in the further course of the revelation of God in His kingdom appeared with more and more distinctness as persons of the Divine Being."
 
Free said:
Your analogy doesn't work. If you say to children, "Let us play soccer," then you're inviting the children to play soccer; you're speaking to more than one person for the purpose of engaging with those persons. It also doesn't address that the very next verse states that "God created man in his own image;" singular image of God. So, if God is talking to an audience about making man "in our image," he must be talking at least one other who isn't a creature, otherwise verses 26 and 27 are false.

This is part of what the Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament says:

"No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis, - an interpretation which comprehends in its deepest and most intensive form (God speaking of Himself and with Himself in the plural number, not reverentiae causa, but with reference to the fullness of the divine powers and essences which He possesses) the truth that lies at the foundation of the trinitarian view, viz., that the potencies concentrated in the absolute Divine Being are something more than powers and attributes of God; that they are hypostases, which in the further course of the revelation of God in His kingdom appeared with more and more distinctness as persons of the Divine Being."
Click to expand...
The Royal or Majestic we does exist.
 
CherubRam said:
The Royal or Majestic we does exist.
Click to expand...
I never said it doesn’t. In fact, the commentary I provided states the majestic plural can only support the concept of the Trinity. God speaks “of himself, with himself.”

Regardless, what John is saying in John 1:1-18 is pretty clear. The eternally preexistent Son, the Word, became human. This is supported by many statements of Jesus, the very title “Son of God,” the consistent use of kurios, and many other verses in the gospels and beyond.
 
Free said:
I never said it doesn’t. In fact, the commentary I provided states the majestic plural can only support the concept of the Trinity. God speaks “of himself, with himself.”

Regardless, what John is saying in John 1:1-18 is pretty clear. The eternally preexistent Son, the Word, became human. This is supported by many statements of Jesus, the very title “Son of God,” the consistent use of kurios, and many other verses in the gospels and beyond.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion Free.
 
CherubRam said:
Am I allowed to refute the Trinity Doctrine.
Click to expand...

In Genesis we see the Hebrew Elohim is used to describe the creation narrative.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Do you believe Elohim is singular or plural?

I think you will agree Elohim is a plural word.


Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26-27


Question: Do you believe Eve was created in the image of God?




JLB
 
JLB said:
In Genesis we see the Hebrew Elohim is used to describe the creation narrative.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Do you believe Elohim is singular or plural?

I think you will agree Elohim is a plural word.


Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26-27


Question: Do you believe Eve was created in the image of God?




JLB
Click to expand...
Elohiym: "God of the living ones."
elohiym: god-s of the Living One."
 
JLB said:
In Genesis we see the Hebrew Elohim is used to describe the creation narrative.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Do you believe Elohim is singular or plural?

I think you will agree Elohim is a plural word.


Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26-27


Question: Do you believe Eve was created in the image of God?




JLB
Click to expand...
Genesis 1:26,27
God spoke, making man in (our / their) image and likeness; "Let him dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock animals, and all the earth, and every land animal that walks the earth." 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

"Let us" is AIT. It is not in the original scriptures.

The word "woman" is the contracted form of (womb man.)
God created man in His own image
Click to expand...
 
CherubRam said:
Commentary on John 1:1.



Pantheion
Greek pantheion, from pan 'all' + theion 'Divine Eternal-s' (from theios 'divine.')
From Greek aion, meaning Eternal, for an infinite amount of time Pantheion: Pan/the/ion. All Divine Eternal-s. The word “All” makes it plural.

aeon or aion or eon
1. An immeasurably long period of time. From Greek, Aion, an infinitely long time.

Greek word TON and THEON.
From the Scripture4All program. Link: www.scripture4all.org/

The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "the only Divine Eternal." In English the word “one” can also be translated as “only.” TON: The only. THEON: Divine Eternal.

John 1:1
Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and Divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another Divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?


Theon and Theos
They both mean Divine, but in different cases. Theos is the nominative, Theon is accusative. Another form is Theou, which is genitive.

John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [τὸν θεὸν, (TON THEON) literally, the only Divine Eternal], and the Word was divine. [θεὸς].”

In the first instance (“the Word was with the only Divine Eternal”) it is in the accusative case and thus is spelled θεὸν [theon] But in the second occurrence it is in the nominative case, and so it is spelled θεὸς [theos]
Ton Theon was also applied to Zeus, meaning "The Only Divine Eternal."

Eon or Aeon; a very long time.
The word aeon, also spelled eon or æon, originally means "life", and / or "being", though it then tended to mean "age", "forever" or "for eternity". It is a Latin transliteration from the koine Greek word ὁ αἰών (ho aion), from the archaic αἰϝών (aiwon).

In Homer it typically refers to life or lifespan. Its latest meaning is more or less similar to the Sanskrit word kalpa and Hebrew word olam. A cognate Latin word aevum or aeuum (cf. αἰϝών) for "age" is present in words such as longevity.

Although the term aeon may be used in reference to a period of a billion years, its more common usage is for any long, indefinite, period.

Eternity or age
The Bible translation is a treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion. Both these words have similar meaning, and Young's Literal Translation renders them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-during”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternity, being translated as eternal, everlasting, forever, etc. However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion.
Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.

Proponents of Universal Reconciliation point out that this has significant implications for the problem of an eternal hell.

Contrast readings of Matthew 25:46 in well-known English translations with its rendering in Young's Literal Translation:
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during. (YLT)

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (NIV)

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (NASB)

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. (KJV)

And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life. (NWT)

The word "Divine" is a translation, and the word "god" is an interpretation. The reason the word "god" is an interpretation, is because it derived from the name of a Pagan god.



Additional Note.
Theosophy
Theosophy (from Greek θεοσοφία theosophia, from θεός theos, divine + σοφία sophia, wisdom; literally "divine wisdom")

The word theosophia appeared in both Greek and Latin in early Christian writings as a synonym for “theology”. The theosophoi are “those who know divine matters.”
Click to expand...
A reminder for us all about this so called wisdom, Greeks who seek it, and Jews by signs.

All of their disputes ( refuting) is finished. ( that wisdom is now known to be foolishness with God.)

The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who seek wisdom, but it is the power of God to those4 who are saved.



1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top