John 1:1c -:- Is Jesus God or a god?

[RBerman]

Well, sure! It's all very simple if one can rearrange the sentences in an argument to conform to one's own preferences.

[apostoli]

Hello Incrus,

Thankyou for respecting the intent of this thread = "What is A.John telling us at John 1:1c?".

I re-emphasise: my focus, is not which of us here at TWEB has the right or wrong opinion, but what is the truth according to A.John!

You are mistaken

As a word of brotherly advice...

It is not wise to make blanket statements about what you perceive as other peoples error without substantiation. What you think is error, is only your opinion, so say so. Preface your statement with either "Imo," or "Imu," that way if your opinion is demonstrated as being flawed, you can modify your argument without looking flip floppy.

Blanket statements just turn people off. Basically, most people will simply close their minds to whatever you have to say, or be so busy thinking up a defence of their position, that they won't be listening to you. I don't do either! My approach to other peoples opinion is the invocation of a technique called detachment - Using your comments as a guide, I look for ways to prove your opinion. If I can't then I present my objections.

Also, I think it wise in a public forum such as this, to keep the "watchers" in mind. Each post is a witness to them.

You are mistaken in thinking that John "personalized" the "word." He did NOT!

In your response you seem to attest to it = "John 1:2 - He (the flesh) was in the beginning with God".

Other than that, you would have to hold that the flesh (matter) is the saviour and not the person = "He (John) was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light (the flesh). That (the flesh) was the true light which gives light to every men who comes into the world."

Bear in mind that the Bible was NOT written in the same manner that magazines, books or newspapers are written. The next verse does NOT necessarily refer to the preceeding verse and the order that verses are written do NOT necessarily follow usual rules of sentence or paragraph construction.

Can you prove that from scholarly research? Imu, scripture says "God is not a God of confusion", so he would not inspire his agents to obscure his message.

"What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification...For God is not a God of confusion but of peace." (RSV, 1 Cor 14:26,33)

In any case, if you look at the construct of John 1:1 to 14, you'll find it follows the same literary form as all great literature. John 1:1-13 provides a synopsis of what is about to be told, and the synopsis ends with John 1:14, which also acts as the introduction to what is aout to unfold. The narrative, which John summarises in 1:6 to 1:11, begins at John 1:15 and ends at John 19:30. The epilogue, which John summarises at 1:12 & 13, begins at John 19:31.

This is probably one of the ways that God HID His wisdom (1 Cor. 2:7).

If you pay attention to A.Paul's full message you will find such not the case...

"when I came to you, brothers, [I] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or [worldly] wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified...and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of [worldly] wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Yet among the mature we do impart [Godly] wisdom...we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. (RSV, 1 Cor 2:1-7)

_______________________

It is true that in Greek, word order within a clause doesn't always follow English norms. For instance: the same message can be conveyed in several syntaxes but each syntax offers a particular emphasis. Eg: Harner notes that o logos theos ēn and theos ēn o logos "are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis." o logos theos ēn would mean that o logos, rather than someone else, had the nature of o theos. While theos ēn o logos means that o logos had the same nature as o theos, rather than some other nature. "In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, v92, p.85)

Conversely, certain word orders convey alternative messages. eg: Harner notes that o logos theos ēn differs in message from o logos ēn theos. Whereas o logos theos ēn is saying "o logos has the characteristics of o theos", o logos ēn theos places o logos into a particular class (a species) and so it would be rendered "the logos was a god".

From your perspective (Jesus is just a man) there should be no conflict in accepting the simple message of John 1:1c, which you could understand as "in the Logos is found the nature of God".

Of course your opinion that o logos refers to the "spoken intention or plan" with "You are mistaken in thinking that John 'personalized' the 'word'" causes you a problem.

I find your stance perculiar as you could defend your argument (Jesus is just a man) by making him the manifestation of "the plan". Groups with a similar opinion to yours, who argue along these lines, present the Gospel of John as refering exclusively to the new creation, and use 1 John 1:1-2 for support.

While I may disagree with them, at least their interpretation is plausable and requires no manipulation of the scriptures.

Try as I have, I can't find any evidence to support your conclusions and instead, I'm finding your opinions built on the sandy foundations of conjecture.

As I think on your stance, I wonder how you explain (scripturally) Jesus' clear words to Phillip "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:9). We know Jesus is not talking about his outward form (flesh), as he went on to say ""Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves." (John 14:10-11)

_______________________

If we rearrange John 12:1 to 14, it would make John's writing clearer

Imu, to do so, would be an act of defiance of God's will! Either you believe the scriptures are inspired (which includes, in the original language, choice of thought order, choice of sentence structure and choice of word order) or you don't. I do!

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the word (spoken intention or plan). And the word (spoken intention or plan) was with God. And the word (spoken intention or plan) was God.

Have a reread of what you wrote = "the spoken intention or plan is God". Aka God is not a personality. I trust this is not your intention. I presume you meant "And the word (spoken intention or plan) was (of) God". Though that would be logical given your viewpoint, there is no support for such a reading in the Greek of John 1:1.

Of course, if one was to personalise o logos, one could appeal to A.John's testimony concerning the Son of God (eg: John 1:18) to demonstrate that the o logos was of God. But that isn't necessary as the majority of scholars attest that the Greek of John 1:1c is telling us that o logos has the essential characteristics of God. Within your context, that could simply be interpretated as the plan reflects God's character (eg: God is love).

In any case we need a manifestation of the plan for it to be demonstrated as being of God.

Imo, the manifestation of the plan, occured from the moment the Father realised the Son, or, from the viewpoint of rational creatures, from the moment they perceived the Son (eg: 1 Peter 1:12 "which things the angels desire to look into").

John 1:14 - And the word (spoken intention or plan) became flesh and (the flesh) dwelt among us, and we beheld his (the flesh) glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace.

To an extent you provide the consistent teaching of the Orthodox Catholic church since it's inception. The church has always taught that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises - from the first given to Eve concerning her seed to that given to David concerning his seed. However it is not "the flesh" of Jesus the Christ through which salvation occured but through the obedience of the personality known as Jesus Christ (Phil 2:8).

Jesus tells us "the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6:63; cp John 3:6) so A.John is not refering to glorification of the flesh as you seem to imply, but something else. Imu, the glory A.John speaks of equates to John 1:1c.

The Greek is interesting:

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
and. the logos. flesh. became.

καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν
and. tented. among. us.

καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ
and. we beheld. the. glory. [of] him.

δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός
glory. as. only begotten. by. [the] Father.

πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας
full. [of] grace. and. truth.

Examing A.John's original words you should readily see it was not "(the flesh) dwelt among us" but the Logos in the flesh who dwelt among us. Through out John 1:14 the subject is the Logos. It is the Logos that is described, and it is the Logos in the flesh that A.John is witnessing to, not the flesh. The very last worlds make this obvious. It is the Logos in which grace and truth are found not the flesh itself.

John 1:4 - In him (the flesh) was life, and the life was the light of men.

It might be worth thinking on Psalms 36...

"Sin whispers to the wicked, deep within their hearts. They have no fear of God to restrain them. In their blind conceit, they cannot see how wicked they really are. Everything they say is crooked and deceitful. They lie awake at night, hatching sinful plots. Their course of action is never good. They make no attempt to turn from evil.

Your unfailing love, O LORD, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths. You care for people and animals alike, O LORD. How precious is your unfailing love, O God! All humanity finds shelter in the shadow of your wings. You feed them from the abundance of your own house, letting them drink from your rivers of delight.

For you are the fountain of life, the light by which we see.

Pour out your unfailing love on those who love you; give justice to those with honest hearts. Don't let the proud trample me; don't let the wicked push me around. Look! They have fallen! They have been thrown down, never to rise again." (NLT)

Peace

[apostoli]

Well, sure! It's all very simple if one can rearrange the sentences in an argument to conform to one's own preferences.

Was your post meant to address incRus or me?

Peace

[faithymom]

John 1:1c could be viewed two ways since NOBODY knows for sure what John was thinking when he wrote it:

1. John could be telling us that the "word" is as POWERFUL as God who SPOKE it. This ASSURES truthfulness and fulfillment of every "word" that comes out of God's mouth; or

2. John could be telling us that the "word" that was HEARD (note that nobody can see God who SPOKE the word) WAS God. This is like naming an UNSEEN person by the sound of his voice, his footsteps, or even his cough.

Why limit it to only two ways?
"since NOBODY knows for sure what John was thinking when he wrote it" then there's no reason to automatically negate WHAT IT CLEARLY SAYS "The Word was god" especially when it meshes perfectly with the rest of Scripture.

[Johnny MacManky]

Moderated By: Johnny

At the posters' request, I've split off a few posts to a new thread in Unorthodox Theology entitled "Finding God through contemplation"

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[apostoli]

Hello everyone,

Not all grammarians are in full accord. The following paper from which I extracted Harner's comments gives an overview of the major opinions.
http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

Chiefly, most of these guys aren't interested in proving John 1:1c one way or another. Most of them are more interested in the Greek itself rather than dogma.

Hmmm.....odd from my perspective...

Today I set out to research Augustine's understanding of John 17:3 and came across a discussion at B-Greek which diverted to a discussion of John 17:5 and ultimately found it's way to John 1:1. Anyway, it gives an illustration of what I suggested to spitndirt...

Carl W. Conrad, Department of Classics/Washington University

I agree wholeheartedly with the substance of Paul's [Paul S. Dixon] thesis here and his complaint about the Nelson Study Bible: that the absence of an article before QEOS in John 1:1c need not be an indicator that QEOS is definite; I agree too that I think we should understand QEOS as qualitative, and in fact, I've always like best the version (was it J. B. Phillips?): '...and what God was, the Word was.'

Methodologically, however, [Paul S. Dixon's] last sentence bothers me: it seems to imply that we should judge the meaning and intent of the Greek text in terms of what later becomes a recognized heresy and in terms of what is later declared to be right theology. I would think that one ought to determine first what the Greek text CAN mean, and only then go on to make a judgment about whether that accords with this or that theological position. That is to say, I would think that right theology derives from a right reading of the text, not a right reading of the text from right theology.

But this is an area--the theology of hermeneutics?--or is it the hermeneutics of theology?--that is not very properly one of B-Greek focus. It's quite enough, I think, to focus upon what the Greek text can or must mean on its own terms, and to leave to the theologians to read out the implications of that meaning.
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...-08/20520.html

© source where applicable

Concerning John 17:5, Incrus et al, should pay particular attention to the following...

In an earlier email, Carl noted "I think this is not the place to argue for or against one or another Johannine Christology or to return yet once again to the implications of the EGW EIMI passages. I will, however, say something about the immediate context of 17:3 and that 17:5 refers to the glory held by Jesus hHi EICON PRO TOU TON KOSMON EINAI PARA SOI: "which I had in your presence before the world's existence" (very precise and interesting formulation, isn't it? Not PRO TOU TON KOSMON GENESQAI, as would refer precisely to the world's CREATION, but prior to the world's EXISTENCE). The evangelist's Greek style is not especially difficult, but it is certainly very careful: one might suppose that PARA SOI could follow directly upon EICON, but the word order we have _encloses_ PRO TOU TON KOSMON EINAI between hHi EICON and PARA SOI; moreover, not only is the choice of EINAI over GENESQAI significant here, but the choice of the "tense" EICON also quite deliberate. So, although in the Prologue John has stated that the LOGOS is the instrument of creation (1:3, 1:10), the point here is delimited precisely: not a role in creation but the sharing of glory by Christ in the presence of God before the existence of the world. So the glory of Christ in the presence of God is asserted here very precisely, but it is NOT said (not here, at least) that Christ and God are IDENTICAL."
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...-08/20516.html

Those of you that read John 17:3 as per Augustine, should note carefully Carl Conrad's remarks concerning both the Greek and the Latin.
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...-08/20516.html

Peace

[IncRus]

Thankyou for respecting the intent of this thread = "What is A.John telling us at John 1:1c?".

I re-emphasise: my focus, is not which of us here at TWEB has the right or wrong opinion, but what is the truth according to A.John!

You are mistaken
As a word of brotherly advice...

It is not wise to make blanket statements about what you perceive as other peoples error without substantiation. What you think is error, is only your opinion, so say so. Preface your statement with either "Imo," or "Imu," that way if your opinion is demonstrated as being flawed, you can modify your argument without looking flip floppy.

Blanket statements just turn people off. Basically, most people will simply close their minds to whatever you have to say, or be so busy thinking up a defence of their position, that they won't be listening to you. I don't do either! My approach to other peoples opinion is the invocation of a technique called detachment - Using your comments as a guide, I look for ways to prove your opinion. If I can't then I present my objections.

Thank you for your brotherly advice, but whenever I say "you are mistaken," or "you are wrong," I always substantiate it with SCRIPTURE. Hence, I believe that what I say is NOT my opinion but the ONLY truth that is backed up by SCRIPTURE. And I'll continue to do just that in order that the TRUTH may NOT remain HIDDEN.

Also, I think it wise in a public forum such as this, to keep the "watchers" in mind. Each post is a witness to them.

Of course, the "watchers" are ALWAYS in my mind. I believe they are the only people who have NOT reached a rabidly fanatical stage in their religious life.

You are mistaken in thinking that John "personalized" the "word." He did NOT!

In your response you seem to attest to it = "John 1:2 - He (the flesh) was in the beginning with God".

Other than that, you would have to hold that the flesh (matter) is the saviour and not the person = "He (John) was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light (the flesh). That (the flesh) was the true light which gives light to every men who comes into the world."

The "flesh" (MAN) that the word TURNED into is the MAN, Jesus who was born of Mary.

Bear in mind that the Bible was NOT written in the same manner that magazines, books or newspapers are written. The next verse does NOT necessarily refer to the preceeding verse and the order that verses are written do NOT necessarily follow usual rules of sentence or paragraph construction.

Can you prove that from scholarly research? Imu, scripture says "God is not a God of confusion", so he would not inspire his agents to obscure his message.

"What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification...For God is not a God of confusion but of peace." (RSV, 1 Cor 14:26,33)

You will notice that apostle Paul addressed his letter to his "brothers" to whom was given "to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven..." (Matt. 13:10). To them, God is NOT a God of confusion.

On the other hand, to them who have NOT been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, the apostles "SPEAK the wisdom of God in a MYSTERY, the HIDDEN wisdom which God ordained before the ages....which NONE of the rulers of this age knew, for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 2:7-8).

In any case, if you look at the construct of John 1:1 to 14, you'll find it follows the same literary form as all great literature. John 1:1-13 provides a synopsis of what is about to be told, and the synopsis ends with John 1:14, which also acts as the introduction to what is aout to unfold. The narrative, which John summarises in 1:6 to 1:11, begins at John 1:15 and ends at John 19:30. The epilogue, which John summarises at 1:12 & 13, begins at John 19:31.

This was how I looked at John chapter 1 when I was a Trinitarian and saw the chapter ONLY through Trinitarian lenses. However, the moment I opened my mind to the TRUTH of what John 8:40 and John 17:3 was telling me, I realized that the pronouns "he" and "him" were NOT referring to the "word" but to the "flesh" or MAN that the "word" TURNED into.

This is probably one of the ways that God HID His wisdom (1 Cor. 2:7).

If you pay attention to A.Paul's full message you will find such not the case...

"when I came to you, brothers, [i] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or [worldly] wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified...and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of [worldly] wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Yet among the mature we do impart [Godly] wisdom...we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. (RSV, 1 Cor 2:1-7)

Again, you FAILED to notice that apostle Paul's letter was addressed to his "brothers" to whom was given "to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven..." (Matt. 13:10).

Paul's "brothers" are those who are "baptized into the one body" (1 Cor. 12:13), who have "one spirit, who were called in one hope of their calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one God and Father of all, who is ABOVE (not equal) all..." (Eph. 4:4-6). To Paul and his "brothers," they have ONLY ONE God, the Father who is the CREATOR of all things, and ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6 TEV).

The wisdom of God remains HIDDEN to those who are NOT "brothers" of apostle Paul.

It is true that in Greek, word order within a clause doesn't always follow English norms. For instance: the same message can be conveyed in several syntaxes but each syntax offers a particular emphasis. Eg: Harner notes that o logos theos ēn and theos ēn o logos "are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis." o logos theos ēn would mean that o logos, rather than someone else, had the nature of o theos. While theos ēn o logos means that o logos had the same nature as o theos, rather than some other nature. "In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, v92, p.85)

Conversely, certain word orders convey alternative messages. eg: Harner notes that o logos theos ēn differs in message from o logos ēn theos. Whereas o logos theos ēn is saying "o logos has the characteristics of o theos", o logos ēn theos places o logos into a particular class (a species) and so it would be rendered "the logos was a god".

Of course, the "logos" or plan or intention has the NATURE of God because the "logos" or plan or intention COMES from God who SPOKE the "logos" or plan or intention. This only means that since it was God who HAD the "logos" or plan or intention, it had CERTAINTY of fulfillment as God had declared in Numbers 23:19 TEV, thus: "...whatever He promises, He does; He speaks and it is done."

That's the "nature of God" that was revealed when God asked rhetorically, "Hath He said and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken and shall He not make it good? (Numbers 23:19 KJV). And that's the reason why John wrote: "And the WORD was God."

From your perspective (Jesus is just a man) there should be no conflict in accepting the simple message of John 1:1c, which you could understand as "in the Logos is found the nature of God".

Of course your opinion that o logos refers to the "spoken intention or plan" with "You are mistaken in thinking that John 'personalized' the 'word'" causes you a problem.

I have NO problem understanding John 1:1c. I don't see how John could have known that the "word" was a "he!"

I CAN'T imagine Jesus telling John that he WAS God in the beginning AFTER Jesus declared that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:4). That would make Jesus' words UNRELIABLE, and that CANNOT be because he is our SAVIOR and Jesus says he is the way, the TRUTH and the life (John 14:6).

I find your stance perculiar as you could defend your argument (Jesus is just a man) by making him the manifestation of "the plan". Groups with a similar opinion to yours, who argue along these lines, present the Gospel of John as refering exclusively to the new creation, and use 1 John 1:1-2 for support.

While I may disagree with them, at least their interpretation is plausable and requires no manipulation of the scriptures.

Of course, Jesus is the "new creation" and manifestation of God's PLAN for the salvation of His people (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:21). And John 1:1 relates that God's PLAN for the salvation of His people was WITH Him in the beginning and HAD the nature or power of God who SPOKE the PLAN. John 1:2 refers to the "flesh" or MAN who is the manifestation of God's PLAN or the "flesh" or MAN into whom the "word" BECAME.

Try as I have, I can't find any evidence to support your conclusions and instead, I'm finding your opinions built on the sandy foundations of conjecture.

Talking of "conjecture," it is your opinion that John 1:2 is John's personification of the "word" that is certainly "built on sandy foundations of conjecture." Who told you that the "word" WAS a "he?"

As I think on your stance, I wonder how you explain (scripturally) Jesus' clear words to Phillip "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:9). We know Jesus is not talking about his outward form (flesh), as he went on to say ""Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves." (John 14:10-11)

It is pure "conjecture" to opine that Jesus is God because of these verses! These verses CANNOT make John 8:40 where Jesus said he is a MAN and John 17:3 where Jesus declared that the Father is the ONLY true God FALSE.

The word "seen" could mean "understand" or "know" or "believe" as in "I see." One could also "see" someone in somebody by the way he talks, thinks or acts, like, if you see John, you have seen his father."

That Jesus dwells in the Father and the Father dwells in Jesus does NOT make Jesus God either, because Jesus and the Father ALSO dwell in those who ABIDE in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).

If we rearrange John 12:1 to 14, it would make John's writing clearer

Imu, to do so, would be an act of defiance of God's will! Either you believe the scriptures are inspired (which includes, in the original language, choice of thought order, choice of sentence structure and choice of word order) or you don't. I do!

I beleve that ALL scriptures are inspired by God. That's why I CANNOT believe that John would MEAN to tell us that Jesus IS God while Jesus DECLARED that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). I CANNOT believe that God INSPIRED John to CONTRADICT Jesus!

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the word (spoken intention or plan). And the word (spoken intention or plan) was with God. And the word (spoken intention or plan) was God.

Have a reread of what you wrote = "the spoken intention or plan is God". Aka God is not a personality. I trust this is not your intention. I presume you meant "And the word (spoken intention or plan) was (of) God". Though that would be logical given your viewpoint, there is no support for such a reading in the Greek of John 1:1.

Of course, if one was to personalise o logos, one could appeal to A.John's testimony concerning the Son of God (eg: John 1:18) to demonstrate that the o logos was of God. But that isn't necessary as the majority of scholars attest that the Greek of John 1:1c is telling us that o logos has the essential characteristics of God. Within your context, that could simply be interpretated as the plan reflects God's character (eg: God is love).

In any case we need a manifestation of the plan for it to be demonstrated as being of God.

Imo, the manifestation of the plan, occured from the moment the Father realised the Son, or, from the viewpoint of rational creatures, from the moment they perceived the Son (eg: 1 Peter 1:12 "which things the angels desire to look into").

I believe I have covered this above.

John 1:14 - And the word (spoken intention or plan) became flesh and (the flesh) dwelt among us, and we beheld his (the flesh) glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace.

To an extent you provide the consistent teaching of the Orthodox Catholic church since it's inception. The church has always taught that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises - from the first given to Eve concerning her seed to that given to David concerning his seed.

However it is not "the flesh" of Jesus the Christ through which salvation occured but through the obedience of the personality known as Jesus Christ (Phil 2:8). Jesus tells us "the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6:63; cp John 3:6) so A.John is not refering to glorification of the flesh as you seem to imply, but something else. Imu, the glory A.John speaks of equates to John 1:1c.

I am amazed at how Trinitarians make simple things murky to MiSLEAD people. Who says it is "the flesh" of Jesus the Christ through which salvation occured?" When I say "flesh," I mean the "MAN " that the "word BECAME" as recorded in the Bible. I DON'T imply that apostle John was referring to the "glorification of the flesh." I believe I have stated this CLEARLY in the preceeding paragraphs.

The Greek is interesting:

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
and. the logos. flesh. became.

καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν
and. tented. among. us.

καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ
and. we beheld. the. glory. [of] him.

δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός
glory. as. only begotten. by. [the] Father.

πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας
full. [of] grace. and. truth.

Examing A.John's original words you should readily see it was not "(the flesh) dwelt among us" but the Logos in the flesh who dwelt among us. Through out John 1:14 the subject is the Logos. It is the Logos that is described, and it is the Logos in the flesh that A.John is witnessing to, not the flesh. The very last worlds make this obvious. It is the Logos in which grace and truth are found not the flesh itself.

You are telling me that when Jesus (the flesh/man) said, "I am the way the TRUTH and the life" (John 14:6), it was the "logos" in him that was talking - NOT Jesus himself, aren't you? Now I "see" why it took centuries fior the so-called "early church fathers" to affirm the Trinity doctrine with the help of Emperor Constantine. Every time I talk to a Tinitarian, I always discover new SLANTS to this FALSE doctrine. This is my first time to hear that the "logos in the flesh" dwelt with us!

[QUOTE=apostoli;2574878]

John 1:4 - In him (the flesh) was life, and the life was the light of men.
It might be worth thinking on Psalms 36...

"Sin whispers to the wicked, deep within their hearts. They have no fear of God to restrain them. In their blind conceit, they cannot see how wicked they really are. Everything they say is crooked and deceitful. They lie awake at night, hatching sinful plots. Their course of action is never good. They make no attempt to turn from evil.

Your unfailing love, O LORD, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths. You care for people and animals alike, O LORD. How precious is your unfailing love, O God! All humanity finds shelter in the shadow of your wings. You feed them from the abundance of your own house, letting them drink from your rivers of delight.

For you are the fountain of life, the light by which we see.

Pour out your unfailing love on those who love you; give justice to those with honest hearts. Don't let the proud trample me; don't let the wicked push me around. Look! They have fallen! They have been thrown down, never to rise again." (NLT)

These verses do NOT make Jesus God! They IRRELEVANT to the subject of this thread.

[jahrule84]

The Word was God, this God is said to be with God, so God was with God. Two Gods. That's not much different from translating it as "a god" anyway.

Did God the Father become flesh in vs 14? No; so it was ANOTHER God, the Son.

[apostoli]

hello IncRus,

John 1:4 - In him (the flesh) was life, and the life was the light of men.

It might be worth thinking on Psalms 36...

"Sin whispers to the wicked, deep within their hearts. They have no fear of God to restrain them. In their blind conceit, they cannot see how wicked they really are. Everything they say is crooked and deceitful. They lie awake at night, hatching sinful plots. Their course of action is never good. They make no attempt to turn from evil.

Your unfailing love, O LORD, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths. You care for people and animals alike, O LORD. How precious is your unfailing love, O God! All humanity finds shelter in the shadow of your wings. You feed them from the abundance of your own house, letting them drink from your rivers of delight.

For you are the fountain of life, the light by which we see.

Pour out your unfailing love on those who love you; give justice to those with honest hearts. Don't let the proud trample me; don't let the wicked push me around. Look! They have fallen! They have been thrown down, never to rise again." (NLT)

These verses do NOT make Jesus God! They IRRELEVANT to the subject of this thread.

All I did was respond to your cite of John 1:4. Could it be that you post irrelevencies?

But as you thought John 1:4 relevent to the subject of this thread, you should have known that Psalms 36 says YHWH is "the fountain of life, the light by which we see." A.John says "In [the Logos] was life, and the life was the light of men". Which follows A.John's thought in John 1:1, where he says in Greek idiom, that whatever one attributes to God, it is also attributable to the Logos. Of course A.John doesn't say that the Logos was the same identity (person) as the God whom he was with, that would be illogical.

Peace

ps:

By the way, John 1:4 & Psalms 36 are relevant to the subject of the thread on two counts, 1=they relate to the wisdom literature and 2=they correlate to John 1:1. See the rules of engagement in post #1 "insights from the Hebrew wisdom literature, are permissable. As are correlations of John 1:1-3, 14 with other scripture (eg: Phil 2:6-8; Col 1:15-19; Heb 1:2-3 or otherwise). In the later case, the correlation should be made obvious." Possibly my highlighting of the critical clause in Psalms 36 wasn't obvious enough for you.

pss:

Of course, the "watchers" are ALWAYS in my mind. I believe they are the only people who have NOT reached a rabidly fanatical stage in their religious life.

Hmm. In case you hadn't noticed you just accused yourself of having reached a rabidly fanatical stage in your religious life.

[apostoli]

I am amazed at how Trinitarians make simple things murky to MiSLEAD people. Who says it is "the flesh" of Jesus the Christ through which salvation occured?"

You did!

When I say "flesh," I mean the "MAN " that the "word BECAME" as recorded in the Bible.

Thats what trinitarians believe!

I DON'T imply that apostle John was referring to the "glorification of the flesh." I believe I have stated this CLEARLY in the preceeding paragraphs.

I got the impression that you advocated the glorification of the flesh. In any case, wouldn't glorification of the man cause idolatory of a creature? In what way do you suppose Jesus is glorified?

You are telling me that when Jesus (the flesh/man) said, "I am the way the TRUTH and the life" (John 14:6), it was the "logos" in him that was talking - NOT Jesus himself, aren't you?

Nope. As you agreed in your previous posts God is not a God of confusion. If I take your suggestion that all things are made clear to the spiritual bothers of the apostles I would assume you would understand what John 1:14 says and what I said.

Now I "see" why it took centuries fior the so-called "early church fathers" to affirm the Trinity doctrine with the help of Emperor Constantine.

Constantine wasn't essential, the Trinity doctrine was preached for several hundred years before Nicea. In fact even the Arians held to it. However, they variously thought that the Son was subordinate to the Father or a seperate God. Remember, it is clearly spelt out by Arius that he and those with a similar opinion believed Jesus was perfect God. Have a read of Arius letters if you don't believe me...
http://www.holy-catholic.org/arian/arian_letters.html

Nicea wasn't about the trinity as you think of it but about affirming that there were not three Gods (tritheism).

Every time I talk to a Tinitarian, I always discover new SLANTS to this FALSE doctrine. This is my first time to hear that the "logos in the flesh" dwelt with us!

Guess you have never read John's gospel. Pick a version, I've listed several for you...

John 1:14

NLT - So the Word became human and lived here on earth among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness.* And we have seen his glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father.

NKJV - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

NIV - The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,* who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

ESV - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

RVR - Y aquel Verbo fue hecho carne, y habitó entre nosotros (y vimos su gloria, gloria como del unigénito del Padre), lleno de gracia y de verdad.

NASB - And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

RSV - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

ASV - And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

YNG - And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

DBY - And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth;

WEB - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

HNV - The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

VUL - et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam eius gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis

TR - χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης

mGNT - καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

© source where applicable

peace

[IncRus]

John 1:1c could be viewed two ways since NOBODY knows for sure what John was thinking when he wrote it:

1. John could be telling us that the "word" is as POWERFUL as God who SPOKE it. This ASSURES truthfulness and fulfillment of every "word" that comes out of God's mouth; or

2. John could be telling us that the "word" that was HEARD (note that nobody can see God who SPOKE the word) WAS God. This is like naming an UNSEEN person by the sound of his voice, his footsteps, or even his cough.

Why limit it to only two ways?
"since NOBODY knows for sure what John was thinking when he wrote it" then there's no reason to automatically negate WHAT IT CLEARLY SAYS "The Word was god" especially when it meshes perfectly with the rest of Scripture.

The "word was god" does NOT mesh perfectly with the rest of Scripture. How can the "word" be "a god" (judge or mighty man - Psalm 82:1-2; or an idol - Psalm 96:5) BEFORE the "word" BECAME "flesh" or MAN?

Neither does the "word was God" mesh perfectly with the rest of Scripture. If the "word was actually God" and was WITH ANOTHER God in the beginning, there would have been TWO Gods in the beginning. And that CONTRADICTS what is written in the Old Testament.

Therefore, John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning.

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

The "word was god" does NOT mesh perfectly with the rest of Scripture. How can the "word" be "a god" (judge or mighty man - Psalm 82:1-2; or an idol - Psalm 96:5) BEFORE the "word" BECAME "flesh" or MAN?

Neither does the "word was God" mesh perfectly with the rest of Scripture. If the "word was actually God" and was WITH ANOTHER God in the beginning, there would have been TWO Gods in the beginning. And that CONTRADICTS what is written in the Old Testament.

Therefore, John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning.

All informed Trinitarians would agree with you! Especially because A.John is telling us in Greek idiom that whatever attributes one might assign to God are attributable to the Logos also - as most Greek grammarians attest. This conforms with what the author of Hebrews tells us (1:3) = "The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly" (NLT).

Peace

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

The "word was god" does NOT mesh perfectly with the rest of Scripture. How can the "word" be "a god" (judge or mighty man - Psalm 82:1-2; or an idol - Psalm 96:5) BEFORE the "word" BECAME "flesh" or MAN?

Neither does the "word was God" mesh perfectly with the rest of Scripture. If the "word was actually God" and was WITH ANOTHER God in the beginning, there would have been TWO Gods in the beginning. And that CONTRADICTS what is written in the Old Testament.

Therefore, John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning.

All informed Trinitarians would agree with you!

If it is true that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning," where does the so-called "INCARNATION" theory come in?

Who is then the "God" who INCARNATED into a MAN?

Especially because A.John is telling us in Greek idiom that whatever attributes one might assign to God are attributable to the Logos also - as most Greek grammarians attest. This conforms with what the author of Hebrews tells us (1:3) = "The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly" (NLT).

Heb. 1:3 is entirely DIFFERENT from John 1:1.

John 1:1 does NOT refer to a "person" but to an idea, intent or plan. The "logos" is NOT a "person."

On the other hand, Heb. 1:3 refers SPECIFICALLY to a "person" and that "person" being referred to SPECIFICALLY is the SON of God.

Whatever Heb. 1:3 says about Jesus does NOT make Jesus God because Jesus HAD declared WITHOUT equivocation that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

If it is true that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning," where does the so-called "INCARNATION" theory come in?

The early church didn't preceive the ""INCARNATION" as a theory, but as a fact.

If you look at the Christian apologies in regard to pagan antonisms from the 1st through the 4th centuries, and even the Christology debates within the church in the late 4th century, early 5th century, they revolved about the duality in nature of Jesus and how it is to be construed - single personality=monophysites, dual personality=Nestorians, distinct personalities=Chalcedonians.

To this day elements of the monophysites consider the Chalcedonians as being Nestorian.

Imo, it is a vague debate. All Christian groups seem to agree that the Logos, as a personality, adopted humanity into his profile. However, the monophysites hold that the adoption is seemless and the Chaledonians hold that the profile has seams (eg: as a man can be both a slave and a master of slaves).

Imo, a totally trivial philosophic debate, but a neccessary debate, in regards to explaining to the pagan philosopher (non-Christian) how such and such is so.

The modern debate (ie: such as your opinion) is based on non-christian philosophical views that require God to be detached from creation (cannot participate in his own creation).

NB: As you consistently advocate an islamic position, I assume you are not Christian, although you might identify yourself as such (Matthew 7:21-23).

IWho is then the "God" who INCARNATED into a MAN?

The Son of God!

Heb. 1:3 is entirely DIFFERENT from John 1:1. John 1:1 does NOT refer to a "person" but to an idea, intent or plan. The "logos" is NOT a "person."

Only from your perspective! Both say the same thing as does various texts in A.Paul, A.John and A.Peter's letters.

On the other hand, Heb. 1:3 refers SPECIFICALLY to a "person" and that "person" being referred to SPECIFICALLY is the SON of God.

And yet Hebrews tells us that this man "upholds all things by the word of his power".

How is this so? Is the man greater than his Father, his God? Or could it be, that as Son of God he has the same power as his Father?

Whatever Heb. 1:3 says about Jesus does NOT make Jesus God because Jesus HAD declared WITHOUT equivocation that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus also says "WITHOUT equivocation" that he is the Son of God, and he did so in such a way that those around him, understood him as saying, he had a real (natural = ousia as opposed to physis) fillial relationship with his Father, who he identified as being God (ie: in modern terms, genetically a son).

Peace

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

If it is true that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning," where does the so-called "INCARNATION" theory come in?

the early church didn't preceive the ""INCARNATION" as a theory, but as a fact.

If you look at the Christian apologies in regard to pagan antonisms from the 1st through the 4th centuries, and even the Christology debates within the church in the late 4th century, early 5th century, they revolved about the duality in nature of Jesus and how it is to be construed - single personality=monophysites, dual personality=Nestorians, distinct personalities=Chalcedonians.

To this day elements of the monophysites consider the Chalcedonians as being Nestorian.

Imo, it is a vague debate. All Christian groups seem to agree that the Logos, as a personality, adopted humanity into his profile. However, the monophysites hold that the adoption is seemless and the Chaledonians hold that the profile has seams (eg: as a man can be both a slave and a master of slaves).

Imo, a totally trivial philosophic debate, but a neccessary debate, in regards to explaining to the pagan philosopher (non-Christian) how such and such is so.

You say that the early church didn't perceive the "incarnation" as a theory, but as a fact. Doesn't "incarnation" mean the embodiment of DEITY into human form?

If it is true that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning,".....

......WHO is the "God" who "incarnated" into human form?

The modern debate (ie: such as your opinion) is based on non-christian philosophical views that require God to be detached from creation (cannot participate in his own creation).

What do you mean by "God to be detached from creation" or "cannot participate in his own creation?" Why is it "non-Christian philosophical view" to require that God be detached from creation" or that God "cannot participate in his own creation?"

NB: As you consistently advocate an islamic position, I assume you are not Christian, although you might identify yourself as such (Matthew 7:21-23).

Are you telling me that John 8:40 and John 17:3 are "islamic positions?"

IWho is then the "God" who INCARNATED into a MAN?

The Son of God!

If, as you say, that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning,".....

....how can the Son of God be the "God" who INCARNATED himself into a MAN?

Heb. 1:3 is entirely DIFFERENT from John 1:1. John 1:1 does NOT refer to a "person" but to an idea, intent or plan. The "logos" is NOT a "person."

Only from your perspective! Both say the same thing as does various texts in A.Paul, A.John and A.Peter's letters.

Earlier you said that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning,"

Therefore, the "word" was NOT a "god" NOR a "God." Then, tell me, WHAT was the "word" that was WITH God in the beginning? Are you or aren't you an "INFORMED" Trinitarian?

On the other hand, Heb. 1:3 refers SPECIFICALLY to a "person" and that "person" being referred to SPECIFICALLY is the SON of God.

And yet Hebrews tells us that this man "upholds all things by the word of his power".

Yes, this MAN "upholds all things by the word of his power" (sustaining the universe with his poowerful word - Heb. 1:3 TEV), BUT, this MAN is NOT God, because the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

How is this so? Is the man greater than his Father, his God? Or could it be, that as Son of God he has the same power as his Father?

Jesus, the MAN is NOT greater than the Father. In fact, Jesus said the Father is GREATER than he (John 14:28). But Jesus said, "all authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18).

Whatever Heb. 1:3 says about Jesus does NOT make Jesus God because Jesus HAD declared WITHOUT equivocation that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus also says "WITHOUT equivocation" that he is the Son of God, and he did so in such a way that those around him, understood him as saying, he had a real (natural = ousia as opposed to physis) fillial relationship with his Father, who he identified as being God (ie: in modern terms, genetically a son).

The Jews NEVER understood Jesus. When Jesus said, "I am the Son of God," (John 10:36), the Jews understood that to mean "Jesus was making himself God." Hence, they FALSELY accused Jesus of BLASPHEMY and had him killed.

Jesus' being the Son of God does NOT make him God because Jesus himself says that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, whether Jesus is "genetically a son" or not, or had "real or filial relationship with God the Father is IRRELEVANT.

What matters are the WORDS of Jesus that one MUST believe in order to be saved (John 3:16, 18, 36), saying that he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.