Well, whatever the Word is, it was with God and was God from the beginning...but we don't know from reading verse 1 who or what "The Word" is...until verse 14...where we are told it was made flesh...and it's pretty clear who that flesh was.
I'm making no preconceived assumptions about who or what The Word is in John 1. I don't believe that Jesus is God; I'm not even sure he wasn't a fictional character!
Well, whatever the Word is, it was with God and was God from the beginning...but we don't know from reading verse 1 who or what "The Word" is...until verse 14...where we are told it was made flesh...and it's pretty clear who that flesh was.
I'm making no preconceived assumptions about who or what The Word is in John 1. I don't believe that Jesus is God; I'm not even sure he wasn't a fictional character!
Again, I am intrigued. . . . smart cookie. . . . maybe you would enjoy this link . . . maybe not . . . it is a quick read. http://bible.org/ser...ogue-john-11-18
Greek historical backgrounds: As a philosophical term, lovgo" meant the 'world-soul', the soul of the universe. This was an all-pervading principle, the rational principle of the universe. It was a creative energy. In one sense, all things came from it; in another, men derived their wisdom from it. These concepts are at least as old as Heraclitus (6th cent. BC): the lovgo" is "always existent" and "all things happen through this lovgo"."28Later Hellenistic thought: Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher of the early 1st century, frequently mentions the lovgo" (it appears over 1400 times in his writings), but he is really concerned with his Platonic distinction between this material world and the real, heavenly world of ideas. It was the Stoics who actually developed the concept of lovgo". They abandoned Plato's heavenly archetypes in favor of the thought (closer to Heraclitus) that the Universe is pervaded by lovgo", the eternal Reason. They were convinced of the ultimate rationality of the universe, and used the term lovgo" to express this conviction. It was the 'force' (!) that originated and permeated and directed all things. It was the supreme governing principle of the universe. But the Stoics did not think of the lovgo" as personal, nor did they understand it as we would understand God (i.e. as a person to be worshipped).
The Evangelist, then, is using a term that would be widely recognized among the Greeks. But the 'man in the street' would not know its precise significance, any more than most of us would understand the terms 'relativity' or 'nuclear fission'. But he would know it meant something very important.
The rest of the Fourth Gospel, however, shows little trace of acquaintance with Greek philosophy, and even less of dependence on it.
John, in his use of lovgo", is cutting across the fundamental Greek concept of the gods: they were detached, they regarded the struggles and heartaches and joys and fears of the world with serene, divine lack of feeling. John uses lovgo" to portray a God so involved, so caring, so loving and giving that he becomes incarnate within his creation.
William Barclay summarizes well:
John spoke to a world which thought of the gods in terms of passionless apatheia and serene detachment. He pointed at Jesus Christ and said: 'Here is the mind of God; here is the expression of the thought of God; here is the lovgo". And men were confronted with a God who cared so passionately and who loved so sacrificially that His expression was Jesus Christ and His emblem a cross. . . . . . .
Jewish Backgrounds: The ejn ajrch'/ of John 1:1 inevitably recalls Genesis 1:1, tyvarb. But oJ lovgo" also recalls <yhla rmayw, “and God said…” [cf. also Psalm 33:6, “By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made.”] There was also the “semi-personalization” of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 ff. And the Targums substitute Memra (“Word”) as an intermediary in many places: e.g. in Exod 19:17, “And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God” (MT), the Palestinian Targum reads “to meet theWord of God.” Targum Jonathan (containing the former and latter prophets, Joshua to 2 Kings plus the prophets and Daniel) uses this expression some 320 times. Some say this is not significant because Memra does not refer to a being distinct from God. It is just a way of referring to God himself. But this is the point: people familiar with the Targums were familiar with “Memra” as a designation for God. John does not use the term the way the Targums do, but to those familiar with the Targums it must have aroused these associations, which John would be in agreement with.30
In summary: William Temple states that the lovgo"
“alike for Jew and Gentile represents the ruling fact of the universe, and represents that fact as the self-expression of God. The Jew will remember that ‘by the Word of the Lord the heavens were made’; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will agree that this Logos is the starting-point of all things.”31
John was using a term which, with various shades of meaning, was in common use everywhere. He could count on all men catching his essential meaning. But for John, the Word was not a principle, but a living Being, the source of life; not a personification, but a Person, and that Person divine.
Note: John never uses the absolute, specific, unrelated term lovgo" outside of the prologue. Elsewhere it is always modified or clarified, and does not occur in the Gospel again in the sense of the lovgo". Why not? Probably because in the Prologue we are looking at pre-existence. 1:14 becomes the point of transition: the Word is now Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, he is called Jesus from this point on, no longer oJ lovgo". Jesus and the lovgo" are an identity; the lovgo"is the pre-existent Christ.
Strictly speaking, I would prefer not to say that John has ‘personified’ the lovgo" because this implies that he borrowed the term from philosophical circles like the Stoics. Perhaps if we could ask John, he would prefer to say the philosophers had (in a sense) ‘de-personalized’ the lovgo" into a rational principle, although he really was a person (the pre-incarnate Christ) all along. That is to say, what the philosophers had grasped about the lovgo" had some elements of truth, but these were only dim and distant reflections of the pre-incarnate Christ himself. There really was a rational principle behind the universe, but until the coming of this lovgo" as Jesus of Nazareth (1:14) there was no way to know anything about him (1:18) except by natural revelation with all its limitations.
Well, whatever the Word is, it was with God and was God from the beginning...but we don't know from reading verse 1 who or what "The Word" is...until verse 14...where we are told it was made flesh...and it's pretty clear who that flesh was.
I'm making no preconceived assumptions about who or what The Word is in John 1. I don't believe that Jesus is God; I'm not even sure he wasn't a fictional character!
We don't know from reading verse 1, but we can know from how the word is used throughout the Old Testament. "The Word" is always the communication of God's heart and mind, and never a separate person.
as if John is speaking of a one time event.....
or is it something continuing from the beginning
Both. God's Word is something continuing from the beginning, and it became flesh in a one-time event.
BTW, here is a good list of books about the subject:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
If this is correct then blood is not really the point but the life that's in it.
The word became that life of the flesh, that is in the blood.
So there is something that pertains to flesh having life.
Life in the blood, doesn't say that blood is life.
Or something.....maybe that doesn't say it well....
Hello, all I was a member of the Way from 87-93 well from 86-93 to be exact. I never left the ministry per-say, but had moved to an area where they did not have any twigs. I during my involvement never tried to bring up the deity of Christ, nor the Trinity due to the fierce confrontation it brought on my initial 1st time bringing up the subject. I was literally mind blown to have a bible speaker to firmlY tell me its "BS".He didn't use the abreviation either, but firmly said the word. I was 16 at the time and wasn't really allowed to speak about God at home. I wasn't allowed to have God in my home- my father didn't allow that "crap" so to speak not my words. I was so happy to sneak off to twig because it allowed me to have a bible study in my life secretly behind my fathers back. I just decided to keep quiet on the Deity of Christ and I never brought up Trinity ever again.Once the WOW year was over for the crew that shared with me for a year some wow brothers stayed and some left and I found myself under new leadership. The new leadership assumed that I believed that Jesus wasn't God and after so long of involvement I quietly was in torment about it especially after being a PFAL grad and being involved for many years. I was encouraged during this time to take part in witnessing to people as a group - perhaps at a mall or other places. In my heart I frel that Jesus was indeed Deity so how could I go preach to someone otherwise. I at that time didn't realize the importance of the matter and being the foundation stone of the Christian faith- that is to Trinitarians and its denial would be denying the Lordship of Christ- the one whom we call upon for salvation. I after not participating with witnessing began to be looked at in a very negative sense - all the while I never explained as to why because it was assumed that I believed like those in the Way on this subject. I enjoyed the people in the Way and never spoke agaist it- I didn't understand how to defend the deity of Jesus, plus I was not 100% convinced of it to begin with, I just knew that it bothered me to not worship JESUS AS GOD. I had hoped that PFAL would answer the question for me but it did not. Weirwille in his exegesis of John 1:1 was in my opinion incomplete but I dare not question the authority that I placed myself under at that time I was just so glad to have a place to go and sing songs and here bible and have people accept and love me. It was a break from the alcoholic abuse that plagued my life at the time. Norman Giesler an apologist stated that in John 1:1 the word was with God for all eternity and that the word was a person- namely God according to this passage, but not the Father.(Correcting the Cults)The John 1:1 section. Wierwille as we know keyed in on the word "with"= pros in the Greek- if my memory serves me correctly his definition was "together with but distinctly indepedent of" and at this point uses it against Jesus beingcalled God, because he used it to say that the WORD was distinctly independent of God and therefore can't be God. I was surprised that Trinitarian apologist accepted this definition of "pros" as being sufficient, butyet also incomplete. It as well carried the meaning of great loving intimacy between the Word and the God, which suggest relationship. It also carried the meaning of a face to face loving intimacy between the word= Jesus and the God= Father as the context of John 1 declares in verse 18. A loving intimacy between the two since eternity.Trnitarian apologist when I say accept the definition they although didn't accept the result of Wierwille's conclusion that the word was not God. Weirwille spoke of John 1:1 applying it to the spoken and written word but not necessarily to a person that is of course until he used it to refute Jesus being God - which in my opinion was actually an admittance that the verse was indeed about Christ to begin with- in his mind due to him using it to refute Jesus as God. This was 23 years ago, so if i'm not remebering correctly don't fault me to hard please. I was left bewildered after PFAL, I just decided to put it on the back burner so to speak and enjoy fellowship with people- which was nice. In John 1:1 we have the useage of theos twice one with the article and one without the article. What I mean is the word was with Ton Theon or ho theos= the God and the Word was theos. The article "the"=ho theos= God. To put it simply the word was with THE GOD= Which we know is the Father. The word was God. THEOS EN HO LOGOS= The Word was God. In the Greek the actual wording places theos at the beinning of the sentence structure as in "Theos en ho logos" = God/god was the word. To the Trinitarian scholar- the word "Jesus' was with the Father in a loving intiment relationship for all eternity and was in a face to face loving relationship and was together with but yet distincly independent of the Father but still God. Phillip B. Harner broke it down by showing the word order that John used and stated what was meant by what he said and by what he didn't say. He did this by arranging the word order as well as leaving it in Johns original fashion. He stated that the usage of theos=God/god at the beginning of the sentence was to guard against thinking the word was a second God/god as in an hellenistic sense. He stated "that to place theos at the end of the sentence which John did not do would probably mean that the Word was a god, or a divine being of sometype", but not God as in the word was god, the original clause had theos at the beinning so to come up with the word was god or a god John would have had to place theos at the end of the sentence rather than at the beginning- which he did not do. John instead placed theos= God/god at the beginning to draw empahsis to the nature of the word. That the word shared in the nature of the God with whom he stood in relationship with.When one understands that the second usage of theos is qualatative in meaning = meaning that the word shared in the same nature as the Father with whom he stood in relation. You could then say that the word was God due to being of the same nature as the Father. That the word was no less than the God= the Father with whom he stood in an intiment relationship with.As William Barclay noted in his book Many witnesses, One Lord he gave us an example. If I say James is "the man" I identify James as someone im particular, this would be equivalent to The God as far as an example, if I say James is man without the article in front of man as in "the man" but rather said James is man = word was God then the word man becomes a qualatativesense discribing the nature of James meaning that he is human. IN tHis case in John 1:1 the word God/theos likewise becomes discriptive of the Word's Nature. That is if James is man, then the word theos/ God used in referce to Christ would mean that the Word was in the order of being as God, belonged to the same class as God- that is to say that the word as to his essential nature was that of Deity, what God was the Word was as well. This is why it is translated the word was God. It is not saying that the Word is the Father, it is saying that the word was in the bosom of the Father- hence sense in the Father's bosom hence the same nature, yet disticntly independent of the Father. To clarify this lets insert women in place of the word and man in place of God. In the beginning was the woman and the woman was with the man, and the woman was man. together with the man yet distincly independent of the man but yet of the same nature involved in a loving intiment relationship with the man. She came out of man from his bone and his flesh and was named Adam along with Adam. Genesis 5 vs 1-2, that is if I am remembering correctly. Philip B Harner, volume 92 in the Journal of Biblical literature, 1973 if I'm remembering correctly showed that the second usage of God in John 1:1 in his opinion was qualitative in meaning that the word was no less than the God with whom he stood in relationship with. That the Son/word/logos = Jesus was by way of nature was equal to the Father= the God.(John 5:18) Hence the term Son of God was a claim to equality to God, thus called for a stoning John 10, or resulted in a crucification as we know. Christ knew full well the implications of what it meant to claim to be God's Son and how it was perceived to the Jewish leaders. He knew that it would require his death by claiming this equality. What is God's nature? is it created or uncreated? The word likewise would have to be of the same uncreated nature according to the Trinitarin faith, thus equality would not be meant. That all men may Honor the Son even as they Honor the Father. John 5:23. If Christ was not equal to God, his statement would take on blasphemy according to Trinitarians. That would mean that the Son deserved the same worshipful honor as the Father received. If the Son was worshipped once in scripture, then the supposed position of Weirwille would crumble. Thomas declared unto Christ My Lord and My God, to Weirwille was a Hendaidy sp? meaning one by means of two. such as Lord and God in John 20:28, Weirwille defined this as My Godly Lord, to avoid the Deity of Christ. Apologist refute this as a false and personal definition because it would also allow for the word order to say my Lordly God, plus it couldn't be an hendaidy due to the word my accompanying both nouns Lord and GOD. The actual wording is The Lord of me and the God of me spoken to Jesus by Thomas and Christ accepting it and not rebuking Thomas for this worship. The Greek word Pros= with as in the word was with the God no way violates the Trinitarian view of God and never has.Weirwille gave a true but also incomplete definition to the Greek word Pros in John 1:1. Weirwille sounded very scholastic with his knowledge of the use of hendaidys but used it incorrectly towards John 20:28, with doubting Thomas, he should have also stated that there is another hendaidy in scripture namely Titus 2:13 awaiting the glorious appearing or our great God and Savior of us Jesus Christ. God and Savior applying to the coming of our God and Savior Jesus Christ at his appearing. The Father is neversaid to appear in the coming ever in scripture. God and Savior thus applying to one by means of two discriptions of the one appearing that is Jesus Christ. Just something to consider, This has been the view of the church before the council of Nicea extending to the early church fathers such as Polycarp, Ignatius both of whom were in the time of the original apostles. Justin Marytr as well said Christ was God and in every generation the early church fathers declared it leading up to the council of Nicea. I would recommend reading Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin, especially on the Jehovah Witness section. I would also direct you to the men listed during this discussion, such as : Phillip B Harner, WillIAM Barclay- who isn't a Trinitarian by the way. Julius R Mantey, Ron Rhodes- Reasoning with The Jehovah Witnesses in Scripture, Norman Giesler - Correcting the Cults. Other Books "Putting Jesus in his Place" also Doctor J. Juedes "About the Way International" website- its an apologetic website and also shows proof of Weirwille's plagerizing, especially that of his book receiving the holy spirit today. This is not meant to offend anyone but just to add another view especially to those who had the Deity of Christ stripped from them by the way international as I did, perhaps I was not an isolated case- surely not. If I can be of any help to anyone you may reach me here on this forum, not to dispute, LORD KNOWS I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. I don't claim that at all, but I have useful knowledge of many faiths and study many view points so I can know how to relate to people of different faiths such as a use of terminolgy. Resurrection to a Jehovah Witness means that Christ never rsoe physically from the grave but was instead recreated as a spiritual being, all the while every resurrection that took placein scripture was a physical resurrection from the grave. It is good to know and understand as many faiths as you can to better related to individuals in a loving non condemning way. I leave you with these words of Christ John 2:19-23 Tear down this temple and 3 days I will raise it up. The temple was the temple of his body=soma= his body= his flesh= his person= his humanity. IfChrist said that HE would raise his temple in 3 days then wouldn't this mean that something about Christ survived death? and since he stated "I" WILL RAISE IT UP, Who does he believe himself to be? Since God alone resurrected Jesus. The Father raised up Jesus, Jesus raised himself as well John 2:19-23 and so did the Holy Spirit Romans 8:11, Now if the spiritof him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal bodies through the spirit that dwelleth in you. Thus you have Father, Son, and Spirit working in harmony in the resurrection. Thats Trinity. The Father spoke, the Holy Spirit descended Jesus received Baptism. Trinity. The Father is God, the Son is God : John 20:28, John 1:1, Titus 2:13, Revelation 1:17 Cross refernce Isaiah 44:6 and all 50 somethings uses of the term "Son of God"=equal to God, Christ raising his flesh shows his spiritual identity. The Holy Spirit is called God in acts 5 vs 3-4. Thats Trinity. Christ is also called immanuel = with us is "the God". It is in possession of the definite article= ho theos= the God. The wise man offered INCENSE, AND THE FELL AT HIS FEET AND WORSHIPPED HIM? INCENSE IS INDICATIVE TO TRUE WORSHIP. Saul martyred christians for "calling upon the name of the Lord as in Jesus, Jesus was being called upon this is why he persecuted the church unto death, because they called upon Christ as Lord God, To call upon is to invoke, adore, and worship that is Jesus Christ. To call upon Jesus was an act of worship. To call upon him to adore him to invoke= pray to him, to worship him, therefore Saul/ Paul led a persecution against the 1st century church because they worshipped Jesus Christ. If you confess with you mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that "God" raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved. Christ raised himself from death as well John 2:19-23. For whosever calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. To call Christ Lord is to call him "Yahwey"=LORD. The context shows that the LORD that Paul said to call upon in context was Jesus and to call upon him is equivalent to calling upon the LORD YAHWEY of the old testament In joel 2:32. Paul took this old testament verse applied to GOD and placed it right on Jesus as the Lord to call upon for salvation which would be blasphemy if Jesus wasn't God. I and the FATHER ARE ONE. Echad= hebrew word for one= for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall be ONE=EChAD flesh. It was the composite unity of the two to make one. I and the father are One. Here oh Israel the Lord our GOD is "ONE"=echad Lord. Christ was the only begotten God, this is what the "OLDER Manuscripts attest to about Jesus in John 1:18. The newer manuscripts say the only begotten Son, I chose to think that the older manuscripts are more accurate. Just an observation. To call Christ Lord is to call him Lord and God, that is exactly what Thomas did in John 20:28. The Lord "YAHWEY" is my "SHEPARD" pSALMS 23, Christ said I am "THE" Good Shepard and then said a few verse later I and the Father are One. In the beginning was the woman and she was with the man and was man. One flesh= echad, same nature two persons to make Adam her name was ADAM. Genesis 5;1. IF =Adam and eve can be one and have the same name and flesh, why Can't the Father and Son be one and be the One same God? can man out do God? If Adam was not solitare being made in God's image why should God be solitare? Since the hebrew word for ONE= ECHAD was used to show that Adam and Eve were One Flesh doesn't this show that God speaking of being ONE LORD= ECHAD Duet 6:4 would this show the possiblity of composite unity within the Godhead? Since both verses use Echad for the word One=echad doesn't this give a whole new meaning to Jesus statement in John 10, I and may Father are "ONE". It must have they tried to stone him and then retake him at the end of the chapter. I remember the words of Jesus "all things the Father has are mine" While what a statement, wow what a blasphmous statement "wow" all the things that Father has are MINE. All his power, All HIS GLORY, ALL HIS PRAISE, ALL HIS WORSHIP, ALL HIS HONOR, ALL MEANS ALL. Either Christ was blasphemous or he was trully LORD AND GOD. Love you all, Brant Fitzgerald. Know one can say that Christ is Lord=Yahwey except by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comforts, teaches, commands, forbids. These attributes are all indicative of a personality. For only a person can do these things. and who is this person according to Acts 5:3-4? It is also indicative that Christ received all power in heaven and earth, carries the same titles of God such as Bridegroom, First and Last, Zacahriah 2:10-11 God sent God to dwell among men. the word was God, the only begotten God, John 1:18. I am the bread that came DOWN from heaven. Father Glorify me with the "GLORY" I had with the before the world was. John 17:5 Micah 5:2 he will be born in bethelehem and his goings forth are from days of eternity. God in Isaiah shares his Glory with NO ONE. yet Jesus shares in it in John 17:5, if Jesus said I am the first and the last who can be that except GOD? I know I mispelt a few words in here please be forgiving loveyou all.
Recommended Posts
Oakspear
Well, whatever the Word is, it was with God and was God from the beginning...but we don't know from reading verse 1 who or what "The Word" is...until verse 14...where we are told it was made flesh...and it's pretty clear who that flesh was.
I'm making no preconceived assumptions about who or what The Word is in John 1. I don't believe that Jesus is God; I'm not even sure he wasn't a fictional character!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
as if John is speaking of a one time event.....
or is it something continuing from the beginning
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Again, I am intrigued. . . . smart cookie. . . . maybe you would enjoy this link . . . maybe not
. . . it is a quick read. http://bible.org/ser...ogue-john-11-18
Greek historical backgrounds: As a philosophical term, lovgo" meant the 'world-soul', the soul of the universe. This was an all-pervading principle, the rational principle of the universe. It was a creative energy. In one sense, all things came from it; in another, men derived their wisdom from it. These concepts are at least as old as Heraclitus (6th cent. BC): the lovgo" is "always existent" and "all things happen through this lovgo"."28 Later Hellenistic thought: Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher of the early 1st century, frequently mentions the lovgo" (it appears over 1400 times in his writings), but he is really concerned with his Platonic distinction between this material world and the real, heavenly world of ideas. It was the Stoics who actually developed the concept of lovgo". They abandoned Plato's heavenly archetypes in favor of the thought (closer to Heraclitus) that the Universe is pervaded by lovgo", the eternal Reason. They were convinced of the ultimate rationality of the universe, and used the term lovgo" to express this conviction. It was the 'force' (!) that originated and permeated and directed all things. It was the supreme governing principle of the universe. But the Stoics did not think of the lovgo" as personal, nor did they understand it as we would understand God (i.e. as a person to be worshipped).
The Evangelist, then, is using a term that would be widely recognized among the Greeks. But the 'man in the street' would not know its precise significance, any more than most of us would understand the terms 'relativity' or 'nuclear fission'. But he would know it meant something very important.
The rest of the Fourth Gospel, however, shows little trace of acquaintance with Greek philosophy, and even less of dependence on it.
John, in his use of lovgo", is cutting across the fundamental Greek concept of the gods: they were detached, they regarded the struggles and heartaches and joys and fears of the world with serene, divine lack of feeling. John uses lovgo" to portray a God so involved, so caring, so loving and giving that he becomes incarnate within his creation.
William Barclay summarizes well:
John spoke to a world which thought of the gods in terms of passionless apatheia and serene detachment. He pointed at Jesus Christ and said: 'Here is the mind of God; here is the expression of the thought of God; here is the lovgo". And men were confronted with a God who cared so passionately and who loved so sacrificially that His expression was Jesus Christ and His emblem a cross. . . . . . .
Jewish Backgrounds: The ejn ajrch'/ of John 1:1 inevitably recalls Genesis 1:1, tyvarb. But oJ lovgo" also recalls <yhla rmayw, “and God said…” [cf. also Psalm 33:6, “By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made.”] There was also the “semi-personalization” of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 ff. And the Targums substitute Memra (“Word”) as an intermediary in many places: e.g. in Exod 19:17, “And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God” (MT), the Palestinian Targum reads “to meet theWord of God.” Targum Jonathan (containing the former and latter prophets, Joshua to 2 Kings plus the prophets and Daniel) uses this expression some 320 times. Some say this is not significant because Memra does not refer to a being distinct from God. It is just a way of referring to God himself. But this is the point: people familiar with the Targums were familiar with “Memra” as a designation for God. John does not use the term the way the Targums do, but to those familiar with the Targums it must have aroused these associations, which John would be in agreement with.30
In summary: William Temple states that the lovgo"
“alike for Jew and Gentile represents the ruling fact of the universe, and represents that fact as the self-expression of God. The Jew will remember that ‘by the Word of the Lord the heavens were made’; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will agree that this Logos is the starting-point of all things.”31
John was using a term which, with various shades of meaning, was in common use everywhere. He could count on all men catching his essential meaning. But for John, the Word was not a principle, but a living Being, the source of life; not a personification, but a Person, and that Person divine.
Note: John never uses the absolute, specific, unrelated term lovgo" outside of the prologue. Elsewhere it is always modified or clarified, and does not occur in the Gospel again in the sense of the lovgo". Why not? Probably because in the Prologue we are looking at pre-existence. 1:14 becomes the point of transition: the Word is now Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, he is called Jesus from this point on, no longer oJ lovgo". Jesus and the lovgo" are an identity; the lovgo" is the pre-existent Christ.
Strictly speaking, I would prefer not to say that John has ‘personified’ the lovgo" because this implies that he borrowed the term from philosophical circles like the Stoics. Perhaps if we could ask John, he would prefer to say the philosophers had (in a sense) ‘de-personalized’ the lovgo" into a rational principle, although he really was a person (the pre-incarnate Christ) all along. That is to say, what the philosophers had grasped about the lovgo" had some elements of truth, but these were only dim and distant reflections of the pre-incarnate Christ himself. There really was a rational principle behind the universe, but until the coming of this lovgo" as Jesus of Nazareth (1:14) there was no way to know anything about him (1:18) except by natural revelation with all its limitations.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
We don't know from reading verse 1, but we can know from how the word is used throughout the Old Testament. "The Word" is always the communication of God's heart and mind, and never a separate person.
Both. God's Word is something continuing from the beginning, and it became flesh in a one-time event.
BTW, here is a good list of books about the subject:
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/01/13/biblical-unitarian-books/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
not the only time the word became flesh either
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
If this is correct then blood is not really the point but the life that's in it.
The word became that life of the flesh, that is in the blood.
So there is something that pertains to flesh having life.
Life in the blood, doesn't say that blood is life.
Or something.....maybe that doesn't say it well....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
afriendinJesus
Hello, all I was a member of the Way from 87-93 well from 86-93 to be exact. I never left the ministry per-say, but had moved to an area where they did not have any twigs. I during my involvement never tried to bring up the deity of Christ, nor the Trinity due to the fierce confrontation it brought on my initial 1st time bringing up the subject. I was literally mind blown to have a bible speaker to firmlY tell me its "BS".He didn't use the abreviation either, but firmly said the word. I was 16 at the time and wasn't really allowed to speak about God at home. I wasn't allowed to have God in my home- my father didn't allow that "crap" so to speak not my words. I was so happy to sneak off to twig because it allowed me to have a bible study in my life secretly behind my fathers back. I just decided to keep quiet on the Deity of Christ and I never brought up Trinity ever again.Once the WOW year was over for the crew that shared with me for a year some wow brothers stayed and some left and I found myself under new leadership. The new leadership assumed that I believed that Jesus wasn't God and after so long of involvement I quietly was in torment about it especially after being a PFAL grad and being involved for many years. I was encouraged during this time to take part in witnessing to people as a group - perhaps at a mall or other places. In my heart I frel that Jesus was indeed Deity so how could I go preach to someone otherwise. I at that time didn't realize the importance of the matter and being the foundation stone of the Christian faith- that is to Trinitarians and its denial would be denying the Lordship of Christ- the one whom we call upon for salvation. I after not participating with witnessing began to be looked at in a very negative sense - all the while I never explained as to why because it was assumed that I believed like those in the Way on this subject. I enjoyed the people in the Way and never spoke agaist it- I didn't understand how to defend the deity of Jesus, plus I was not 100% convinced of it to begin with, I just knew that it bothered me to not worship JESUS AS GOD. I had hoped that PFAL would answer the question for me but it did not. Weirwille in his exegesis of John 1:1 was in my opinion incomplete but I dare not question the authority that I placed myself under at that time I was just so glad to have a place to go and sing songs and here bible and have people accept and love me. It was a break from the alcoholic abuse that plagued my life at the time. Norman Giesler an apologist stated that in John 1:1 the word was with God for all eternity and that the word was a person- namely God according to this passage, but not the Father.(Correcting the Cults)The John 1:1 section. Wierwille as we know keyed in on the word "with"= pros in the Greek- if my memory serves me correctly his definition was "together with but distinctly indepedent of" and at this point uses it against Jesus beingcalled God, because he used it to say that the WORD was distinctly independent of God and therefore can't be God. I was surprised that Trinitarian apologist accepted this definition of "pros" as being sufficient, butyet also incomplete. It as well carried the meaning of great loving intimacy between the Word and the God, which suggest relationship. It also carried the meaning of a face to face loving intimacy between the word= Jesus and the God= Father as the context of John 1 declares in verse 18. A loving intimacy between the two since eternity.Trnitarian apologist when I say accept the definition they although didn't accept the result of Wierwille's conclusion that the word was not God. Weirwille spoke of John 1:1 applying it to the spoken and written word but not necessarily to a person that is of course until he used it to refute Jesus being God - which in my opinion was actually an admittance that the verse was indeed about Christ to begin with- in his mind due to him using it to refute Jesus as God. This was 23 years ago, so if i'm not remebering correctly don't fault me to hard please. I was left bewildered after PFAL, I just decided to put it on the back burner so to speak and enjoy fellowship with people- which was nice. In John 1:1 we have the useage of theos twice one with the article and one without the article. What I mean is the word was with Ton Theon or ho theos= the God and the Word was theos. The article "the"=ho theos= God. To put it simply the word was with THE GOD= Which we know is the Father. The word was God. THEOS EN HO LOGOS= The Word was God. In the Greek the actual wording places theos at the beinning of the sentence structure as in "Theos en ho logos" = God/god was the word. To the Trinitarian scholar- the word "Jesus' was with the Father in a loving intiment relationship for all eternity and was in a face to face loving relationship and was together with but yet distincly independent of the Father but still God. Phillip B. Harner broke it down by showing the word order that John used and stated what was meant by what he said and by what he didn't say. He did this by arranging the word order as well as leaving it in Johns original fashion. He stated that the usage of theos=God/god at the beginning of the sentence was to guard against thinking the word was a second God/god as in an hellenistic sense. He stated "that to place theos at the end of the sentence which John did not do would probably mean that the Word was a god, or a divine being of sometype", but not God as in the word was god, the original clause had theos at the beinning so to come up with the word was god or a god John would have had to place theos at the end of the sentence rather than at the beginning- which he did not do. John instead placed theos= God/god at the beginning to draw empahsis to the nature of the word. That the word shared in the nature of the God with whom he stood in relationship with.When one understands that the second usage of theos is qualatative in meaning = meaning that the word shared in the same nature as the Father with whom he stood in relation. You could then say that the word was God due to being of the same nature as the Father. That the word was no less than the God= the Father with whom he stood in an intiment relationship with.As William Barclay noted in his book Many witnesses, One Lord he gave us an example. If I say James is "the man" I identify James as someone im particular, this would be equivalent to The God as far as an example, if I say James is man without the article in front of man as in "the man" but rather said James is man = word was God then the word man becomes a qualatativesense discribing the nature of James meaning that he is human. IN tHis case in John 1:1 the word God/theos likewise becomes discriptive of the Word's Nature. That is if James is man, then the word theos/ God used in referce to Christ would mean that the Word was in the order of being as God, belonged to the same class as God- that is to say that the word as to his essential nature was that of Deity, what God was the Word was as well. This is why it is translated the word was God. It is not saying that the Word is the Father, it is saying that the word was in the bosom of the Father- hence sense in the Father's bosom hence the same nature, yet disticntly independent of the Father. To clarify this lets insert women in place of the word and man in place of God. In the beginning was the woman and the woman was with the man, and the woman was man. together with the man yet distincly independent of the man but yet of the same nature involved in a loving intiment relationship with the man. She came out of man from his bone and his flesh and was named Adam along with Adam. Genesis 5 vs 1-2, that is if I am remembering correctly. Philip B Harner, volume 92 in the Journal of Biblical literature, 1973 if I'm remembering correctly showed that the second usage of God in John 1:1 in his opinion was qualitative in meaning that the word was no less than the God with whom he stood in relationship with. That the Son/word/logos = Jesus was by way of nature was equal to the Father= the God.(John 5:18) Hence the term Son of God was a claim to equality to God, thus called for a stoning John 10, or resulted in a crucification as we know. Christ knew full well the implications of what it meant to claim to be God's Son and how it was perceived to the Jewish leaders. He knew that it would require his death by claiming this equality. What is God's nature? is it created or uncreated? The word likewise would have to be of the same uncreated nature according to the Trinitarin faith, thus equality would not be meant. That all men may Honor the Son even as they Honor the Father. John 5:23. If Christ was not equal to God, his statement would take on blasphemy according to Trinitarians. That would mean that the Son deserved the same worshipful honor as the Father received. If the Son was worshipped once in scripture, then the supposed position of Weirwille would crumble. Thomas declared unto Christ My Lord and My God, to Weirwille was a Hendaidy sp? meaning one by means of two. such as Lord and God in John 20:28, Weirwille defined this as My Godly Lord, to avoid the Deity of Christ. Apologist refute this as a false and personal definition because it would also allow for the word order to say my Lordly God, plus it couldn't be an hendaidy due to the word my accompanying both nouns Lord and GOD. The actual wording is The Lord of me and the God of me spoken to Jesus by Thomas and Christ accepting it and not rebuking Thomas for this worship. The Greek word Pros= with as in the word was with the God no way violates the Trinitarian view of God and never has.Weirwille gave a true but also incomplete definition to the Greek word Pros in John 1:1. Weirwille sounded very scholastic with his knowledge of the use of hendaidys but used it incorrectly towards John 20:28, with doubting Thomas, he should have also stated that there is another hendaidy in scripture namely Titus 2:13 awaiting the glorious appearing or our great God and Savior of us Jesus Christ. God and Savior applying to the coming of our God and Savior Jesus Christ at his appearing. The Father is neversaid to appear in the coming ever in scripture. God and Savior thus applying to one by means of two discriptions of the one appearing that is Jesus Christ. Just something to consider, This has been the view of the church before the council of Nicea extending to the early church fathers such as Polycarp, Ignatius both of whom were in the time of the original apostles. Justin Marytr as well said Christ was God and in every generation the early church fathers declared it leading up to the council of Nicea. I would recommend reading Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin, especially on the Jehovah Witness section. I would also direct you to the men listed during this discussion, such as : Phillip B Harner, WillIAM Barclay- who isn't a Trinitarian by the way. Julius R Mantey, Ron Rhodes- Reasoning with The Jehovah Witnesses in Scripture, Norman Giesler - Correcting the Cults. Other Books "Putting Jesus in his Place" also Doctor J. Juedes "About the Way International" website- its an apologetic website and also shows proof of Weirwille's plagerizing, especially that of his book receiving the holy spirit today. This is not meant to offend anyone but just to add another view especially to those who had the Deity of Christ stripped from them by the way international as I did, perhaps I was not an isolated case- surely not. If I can be of any help to anyone you may reach me here on this forum, not to dispute, LORD KNOWS I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. I don't claim that at all, but I have useful knowledge of many faiths and study many view points so I can know how to relate to people of different faiths such as a use of terminolgy. Resurrection to a Jehovah Witness means that Christ never rsoe physically from the grave but was instead recreated as a spiritual being, all the while every resurrection that took placein scripture was a physical resurrection from the grave. It is good to know and understand as many faiths as you can to better related to individuals in a loving non condemning way. I leave you with these words of Christ John 2:19-23 Tear down this temple and 3 days I will raise it up. The temple was the temple of his body=soma= his body= his flesh= his person= his humanity. IfChrist said that HE would raise his temple in 3 days then wouldn't this mean that something about Christ survived death? and since he stated "I" WILL RAISE IT UP, Who does he believe himself to be? Since God alone resurrected Jesus. The Father raised up Jesus, Jesus raised himself as well John 2:19-23 and so did the Holy Spirit Romans 8:11, Now if the spiritof him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal bodies through the spirit that dwelleth in you. Thus you have Father, Son, and Spirit working in harmony in the resurrection. Thats Trinity. The Father spoke, the Holy Spirit descended Jesus received Baptism. Trinity. The Father is God, the Son is God : John 20:28, John 1:1, Titus 2:13, Revelation 1:17 Cross refernce Isaiah 44:6 and all 50 somethings uses of the term "Son of God"=equal to God, Christ raising his flesh shows his spiritual identity. The Holy Spirit is called God in acts 5 vs 3-4. Thats Trinity. Christ is also called immanuel = with us is "the God". It is in possession of the definite article= ho theos= the God. The wise man offered INCENSE, AND THE FELL AT HIS FEET AND WORSHIPPED HIM? INCENSE IS INDICATIVE TO TRUE WORSHIP. Saul martyred christians for "calling upon the name of the Lord as in Jesus, Jesus was being called upon this is why he persecuted the church unto death, because they called upon Christ as Lord God, To call upon is to invoke, adore, and worship that is Jesus Christ. To call upon Jesus was an act of worship. To call upon him to adore him to invoke= pray to him, to worship him, therefore Saul/ Paul led a persecution against the 1st century church because they worshipped Jesus Christ. If you confess with you mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that "God" raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved. Christ raised himself from death as well John 2:19-23. For whosever calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. To call Christ Lord is to call him "Yahwey"=LORD. The context shows that the LORD that Paul said to call upon in context was Jesus and to call upon him is equivalent to calling upon the LORD YAHWEY of the old testament In joel 2:32. Paul took this old testament verse applied to GOD and placed it right on Jesus as the Lord to call upon for salvation which would be blasphemy if Jesus wasn't God. I and the FATHER ARE ONE. Echad= hebrew word for one= for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall be ONE=EChAD flesh. It was the composite unity of the two to make one. I and the father are One. Here oh Israel the Lord our GOD is "ONE"=echad Lord. Christ was the only begotten God, this is what the "OLDER Manuscripts attest to about Jesus in John 1:18. The newer manuscripts say the only begotten Son, I chose to think that the older manuscripts are more accurate. Just an observation. To call Christ Lord is to call him Lord and God, that is exactly what Thomas did in John 20:28. The Lord "YAHWEY" is my "SHEPARD" pSALMS 23, Christ said I am "THE" Good Shepard and then said a few verse later I and the Father are One. In the beginning was the woman and she was with the man and was man. One flesh= echad, same nature two persons to make Adam her name was ADAM. Genesis 5;1. IF =Adam and eve can be one and have the same name and flesh, why Can't the Father and Son be one and be the One same God? can man out do God? If Adam was not solitare being made in God's image why should God be solitare? Since the hebrew word for ONE= ECHAD was used to show that Adam and Eve were One Flesh doesn't this show that God speaking of being ONE LORD= ECHAD Duet 6:4 would this show the possiblity of composite unity within the Godhead? Since both verses use Echad for the word One=echad doesn't this give a whole new meaning to Jesus statement in John 10, I and may Father are "ONE". It must have they tried to stone him and then retake him at the end of the chapter. I remember the words of Jesus "all things the Father has are mine" While what a statement, wow what a blasphmous statement "wow" all the things that Father has are MINE. All his power, All HIS GLORY, ALL HIS PRAISE, ALL HIS WORSHIP, ALL HIS HONOR, ALL MEANS ALL. Either Christ was blasphemous or he was trully LORD AND GOD. Love you all, Brant Fitzgerald. Know one can say that Christ is Lord=Yahwey except by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comforts, teaches, commands, forbids. These attributes are all indicative of a personality. For only a person can do these things. and who is this person according to Acts 5:3-4? It is also indicative that Christ received all power in heaven and earth, carries the same titles of God such as Bridegroom, First and Last, Zacahriah 2:10-11 God sent God to dwell among men. the word was God, the only begotten God, John 1:18. I am the bread that came DOWN from heaven. Father Glorify me with the "GLORY" I had with the before the world was. John 17:5 Micah 5:2 he will be born in bethelehem and his goings forth are from days of eternity. God in Isaiah shares his Glory with NO ONE. yet Jesus shares in it in John 17:5, if Jesus said I am the first and the last who can be that except GOD? I know I mispelt a few words in here please be forgiving loveyou all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.