JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 23 2013,10:18)

These are the words of a Jew of that time speaking of the word. Quote Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made.” (The Special Laws, I, XVI, 81). That is what Jew like John in the same age as John.

Now just change the word “by” to “through”, since in this use it means “through” anyway – and then add these words from Tertullian:  He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another.

The source you quoted is saying the same thing Pierre and I have been telling you for years, Kerwin:  God, alone and by Himself, created all things.  And God chose to do that THROUGH His Word – AKA “Jesus Christ”.

Look at your quote………… Now the image of God is “the Word”…….  WHO is called “the image of God” in scripture?  (Col 1:15)

And your quote says…… by (THROUGH) which all the world was made.

WHO exactly were all things made THROUGH?  (Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, 1 Cor 8:6)

And consider that last scripture – 1 Cor 8:6……….

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I ask you one simple question – to which I'd like a DIRECT and HONEST answer:  Does the verse above teach us that all things came FROM Jesus Christ?  Or is there a DIFFERENCE between “FROM” and “THROUGH”? Which one please?

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 24 2013,13:45)

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 24 2013,10:02) LU, Do you know why they replaced the God's name with his utterance? God spoke his word and all of creation came to be. K Tell me did God created his heavenly sons before ,but after his only begotten son ,he created the universe and all that it composes or after all creation was completed

T,

The Genesis story of creation, as it is written now, vaguely informs us of which happens in the heavenly realms.  We do know that it and the earth were created in the beginning.  Any creature that may have been created before it would have been is not created of it as it did not yet exist.  On the sixth day both the generations of earth and heaven were created.  The angels are of the generations of heaven but anything created before heaven came to be is neither of the generations of heaven nor of the generations of earth.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 24 2013,22:01)

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 23 2013,10:18) These are the words of a Jew of that time speaking of the word. Quote Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made.” (The Special Laws, I, XVI, 81). That is what Jew like John in the same age as John. Now just change the word “by” to “through”, since in this use it means “through” anyway – and then add these words from Tertullian:  He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. The source you quoted is saying the same thing Pierre and I have been telling you for years, Kerwin:  God, alone and by Himself, created all things.  And God chose to do that THROUGH His Word – AKA “Jesus Christ”. Look at your quote………… Now the image of God is “the Word”…….  WHO is called “the image of God” in scripture?  (Col 1:15) And your quote says…… by (THROUGH) which all the world was made. WHO exactly were all things made THROUGH?  (Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, 1 Cor 8:6) And consider that last scripture – 1 Cor 8:6………. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. I ask you one simple question – to which I'd like a DIRECT and HONEST answer:  Does the verse above teach us that all things came FROM Jesus Christ?  Or is there a DIFFERENCE between “FROM” and “THROUGH”?  Which one please?

Mike,

My source is Philo of Alexander, a Jew who believed the word was God's utterance but yes, “by” has multiple meanings.

[terraricca]

Marty

Quote

Hi Pierre: I think that God is not the author of confusion, and so it must be that other guy. It is not my interpretation or yours that matters but God's Word that is the truth. Love in Christ, Marty

that is what i always say ,but it seems that for some reason some deviate from it ,and of cause it could not be us ,it as to be the other one ,and so while the discussion goes on God written words are left behind or on the side ;so i still say;

well their is our different understanding ;from God's written word ;this is not new ,is it ;?

the truth of God ,is not a given thing BUT AN ACQUIRED GIFT FROM GOD THROUGH HIS SCRIPTURES ,RELATED TO THE AMOUNT OF TRUTH IN THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE SEARCHER ,

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 22 2013,12:52)

We do not use the word god to mean “refers to the things of God his counsels, interests, things due to him whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way” while Koine Greek does use theos that way.

That's not wholly true, because even in English, we can understand that angels of Jehovah were addressed as “God” and “YHWH”, right?  But the minute the context tells us this “angel of God” is WITH God, or is sent on behalf OF God, or even that it is an angel OF God – those bolded words tell us that it is not “God Himself”, right?

So the phrase “the Word OF God” should tell you that this Word isn't actually “God Himself”, right?  And the fact that this Word was WITH God in the beginning should tell you that this Word wasn't actually “God Himself”, right?

The bottom line is that, in the beginning, there was someone ELSE who was WITH God, right?

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 22 2013,12:52)

The word should be divine, godlike, godly, or something of the like in English.

First of all, according to Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “divine” is not an alternative because:  The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”

And secondly, even if you insisted on using “divine”, it STILL indicates someone ELSE who was WITH God, and who was also divine like God is.

Either way, you still end up with TWO in the beginning, one of whom was WITH the other.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 22 2013,13:17)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 22 2013,21:37) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 21 2013,21:19) I found this quote on a forum and if a true quote then those scholars are not really saying anything different than can be derived by the translations of some. Quote “We propose that the best way to take the indefinite article in John 1:1c is as an attempt by the Copts to interpret the anarthrous θε?ς descriptively/qualitatively. As a result, they interpreted and translated John 1.1c to mean that ‘the Word' possesses the same qualities as ‘the God of the Bible'.” Two points, Kerwin: First, do you realize that “possessing the same qualities AS the God of the Bible” would eliminate the Word from actually BEING “the God of the Bible”? That would make “the Word was God” a bad translation – since the Word actually WASN'T “the God of the Bible”. Secondly, do you realize that if one is “qualitatively man”, that one is, by necessity, “a man”?  And therefore, if one is “qualitatively god”, that one is “a god”. Mike, It is a good response if you understand that by the 4th Century heresy was widespread and the Arian teaching were prevalent is the same areas the Coptic manuscripts would be used.  So what you are using is a possible Arian translation of Scripture to support an Arian like Christology.

No Kerwin, it is NOT a good response. Bringing up the Arian controversy is a DIVERSION – not a direct response to the two points I asked you about.

Please address those points DIRECTLY.

1. If someone can be said to be “as good AS God”, then isn't it clear that the same someone ISN'T actually the God he is “as good AS”? YES or NO?

2. Do you realize that if one is “qualitatively man”, that one is also “a man”? YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 23 2013,20:30)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 19 2013,20:26) Here's an example, Kathi: 2 Chronicles 35:6 KJV 6 So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses. Did Moses actually carry this PERSON (the word of YHWH) in his hand? Or does “word of YHWH” simply refer to the commands YHWH had given them through Moses? Mike, I understand your rabbit trail………

I'll take that as a “NO Mike, Moses didn't actually carry the PERSON (the word of YHWH) in his hand, and you have therefore proved to me via SCRIPTURE that the phrase, “the word of YHWH” most often refers to commands and instructions YHWH has given – and NOT to a PERSON.”

Thanks for your comment, Kathi.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 24 2013,10:06)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 24 2013,22:01) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 23 2013,10:18) These are the words of a Jew of that time speaking of the word. Quote Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made.” (The Special Laws, I, XVI, 81). That is what Jew like John in the same age as John. Now just change the word “by” to “through”, since in this use it means “through” anyway – and then add these words from Tertullian:  He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. The source you quoted is saying the same thing Pierre and I have been telling you for years, Kerwin:  God, alone and by Himself, created all things.  And God chose to do that THROUGH His Word – AKA “Jesus Christ”. Look at your quote………… Now the image of God is “the Word”…….  WHO is called “the image of God” in scripture?  (Col 1:15) And your quote says…… by (THROUGH) which all the world was made. WHO exactly were all things made THROUGH?  (Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, 1 Cor 8:6) And consider that last scripture – 1 Cor 8:6………. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. I ask you one simple question – to which I'd like a DIRECT and HONEST answer:  Does the verse above teach us that all things came FROM Jesus Christ?  Or is there a DIFFERENCE between “FROM” and “THROUGH”?  Which one please? Mike, My source is Philo of Alexander, a Jew who believed the word was God's utterance but yes, “by” has multiple meanings.

Kerwin,

Here is the question once more: Does 1 Corinthians 8:6 teach us that all things came FROM Jesus Christ? Or is there a DIFFERENCE between “FROM” and “THROUGH”? Which one please?

Please ANSWER it.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 23 2013,21:30)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 19 2013,20:26) Here's an example, Kathi: 2 Chronicles 35:6 KJV 6 So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses. Did Moses actually carry this PERSON (the word of YHWH) in his hand? Or does “word of YHWH” simply refer to the commands YHWH had given them through Moses? Mike, I was writing about how the Targums substituted the name 'Jehovah' with 'the Word of Jehovah.' I understand your rabbit trail but it really does not address how the Targums equated Jehovah with 'the Word of Jehovah' when Jehovah appeared and spoke. If the Jews back then in John's day heard the term 'the Word' and the 'Word was God,' they would likely relate it to how the OT Jews used 'the Word of Jehovah' to replace the name 'Jehovah' when Jehovah was seen and or heard. It seems that the Jews were very well aware of the scriptures and the Targum understandings of the scriptures. The ongoing argument of whether there is an 'a god' or 'the God' or just 'God' is just chasing the wind and getting nowhere. Jehovah a was with Jehovah b in the beginning. Jehovah a was begotten, Jehovah b begot Jehovah a. Both are eternal, both have the same attributes and together they form one ruler-ship. We need to believe in both for our salvation. Both receive the same blessing, the same honor, the same glory, and the same might.

Yes Mike, I get what you are saying in your rabbit trail.

I take it that you now understand that:

1. The Targums substitute 'the Word of Jehovah' for the name 'Jehovah' in the Hebrew scriptures when Jehovah appears and or speaks?

2. This 'Word of Jehovah' (who the Targums equate with Jehovah who appears and speaks to humans) was with Jehovah who remains unseen, in the beginning. Jehovah who appears and speaks-was begotten before creation, Jehovah who remains unseen begat Jehovah who appeared and spoke in the OT. Both are eternal, both have the same attributes and together they form one ruler-ship. We need to believe in both for our salvation. Both receive the same blessing, the same honor, the same glory, and the same might.

[mikeboll64]

Yes.  Those ancient Jews most likely realized that God Almighty Himself didn't actually appear to humans and walk in the garden of Eden, etc.  Instead, He sent representatives to carry out these deeds, and these reps were often addressed as “YHWH”, and titled as “the word of YHWH” in the targums.

For example, concerning the angel who came to Daniel, we could say, “the word of God came to Daniel, saying…..”.

None of this means the ancient Jews thought there were TWO actual YHWHs.

[mikeboll64]

Nor does it change the fact that the word of God is almost always simply commands and instructions that God has given us.

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Perhaps they believed Jehovah had two facets…one unseen and unheard, the other which appeared and spoke. The NT is telling us one of these facets is the Father and the other is the Son.

[mikeboll64]

No, Kathi.  The ancients never believed there were two different YHWHs.

And the NT merely explains more about the first born SON of YHWH….. not about a SECOND YHWH.

[Lightenup]

Mike,
I understand what you are saying. Can you understand what I am saying in my last post about the ancients perhaps understanding two facets of Jehovah?

[mikeboll64]

Did you read the addition to my first response? I was editing while you were posting. What about the angel who came to Daniel? Could we say, “the word of God came to Daniel, saying……” ? Yes. And would that make Gabriel actually BE Jehovah? No.

[Lightenup]

The NT speaks of someone (Jesus) who was given the Father's name, so yes, a second Jehovah. The NT also identifies Jesus as Jehovah of hosts, the First and the Last, the Lord of lords, the eternal life who was in the beginning with the Father, our God and Savior.

[mikeboll64]

So YES, angels can be meant by the phrase, “the word of YHWH” sometimes. But those ANGELS aren't ever YHWH Himself, nor a “second facet” of Him.

They are His servants. And Jesus may have even been that “angel” on occasion, but it would still only mean he was an angel OF YHWH – not YHWH Himself.

[Lightenup]

Do the targums identify Gabriel as Jehovah, Mike?

[Lightenup]

Mike, where do the targums change 'angel' for the Word of Jehovah or Jehovah?

[tigger2]

“Aramaic Versions (the Targums): These are Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament … prepared for use in the synagogue,” – Eberhard Nestle, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Vol. 2, pp. 130-132.

“The Targums are interpretive renderings of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures … into Aramaic….

“At first the oral Targum was a simple paraphrase in Aramaic, but eventually it became more elaborate and incorporated explanatory details inserted here and there into the translation of the Hebrew text. To make the rendering more authoritative as an interpretation, it was finally reduced to writing. ….

“Though the several Targums display certain common features, there are also many differences of rendering among them, … incorporating a variety of kinds of explanatory comments. …. In speaking of the relationship of God to the world, reverence for the God of Israel led the Targumist to employ surrogates for the Deity, such as ‘Word’ (Memra), ‘Glory’ (Yeqara, ’Iqar), or ‘Presence’ (Shekinah, Aramaic Shekinta). Thus in Genesis 1:16-17 Targum Neofiti reads, ‘The Word of the Lord created the two large luminaries … and the Glory of the Lord set them in the firmament,’ ….” – The Jewish Targums, Bruce Metzger.

Metzger concluded his article:

“All translations of the Bible are necessarily interpretive to some extent, but the Targums differ in that they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase. ….”

Why should we put any stock in writings which are merely interpretations which “far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase.”??

[Author]

Posts