- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
This greek word separates many disciples from each other.Some claim it means the same as 'born'.
Others say it just means 'unique'.I do not think we have plumbed it's full meaning yet and I do not believe either of those translations cover the full meaning of the word.
Jesus was the first of a new creature. Flesh and Spirit, we are the fruits thereof. He being the first born among many brethren (Rom. 8:29).
What was Jesus before the word? This has not been made clear to me I welcome any input. Was He the Holy Spirit? When two or three gather He is in our midst. It is the Holy Spirit that is in our midst. Jesus prayed that He be as He was before the world began. Would that be Spirit?
Hi kenrch,
He cannot have been the Holy Spirit
because scripture says he was filled with the Spirit
which in him is the Spirit of Christ
and the vessel is not the contents.So he was separate from God as another being, the Word, the only begotten Son, who was with God.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 14 2006,04:53) Hi kenrch,
He cannot have been the Holy Spirit
because scripture says he was filled with the Spirit
which in him is the Spirit of Christ
and the vessel is not the contents.So he was separate from God as another being, the Word, the only begotten Son, who was with God.
If He was a separate being then what kind of being? All of creation was spirit before Adam?
The Word was with God. The Word was God. God uses the Word to create.What is a word before you speak it? Somehow I think Jesus was more than just a thought in the Father. Right?
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.God speaks the Word and the Spirit creates? “….And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Quote (kenrch @ Aug. 14 2006,05:00) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 14 2006,04:53) Hi kenrch,
He cannot have been the Holy Spirit
because scripture says he was filled with the Spirit
which in him is the Spirit of Christ
and the vessel is not the contents.So he was separate from God as another being, the Word, the only begotten Son, who was with God.
If He was a separate being then what kind of being? All of creation was spirit before Adam? The Word was with God. The Word was God. God uses the Word to create.What is a word before you speak it? Somehow I think Jesus was more than just a thought in the Father. Right?
Hi kenrch,
A divine being, the image of God.Quote (kenrch @ Aug. 14 2006,05:04) Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.God speaks the Word and the Spirit creates? “….And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Hi kenrch,
This speaks to me of the way the Spirit of God encompasses and infuses all the works of God, including the earth.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 14 2006,05:15) Quote (kenrch @ Aug. 14 2006,05:00) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 14 2006,04:53) Hi kenrch,
He cannot have been the Holy Spirit
because scripture says he was filled with the Spirit
which in him is the Spirit of Christ
and the vessel is not the contents.So he was separate from God as another being, the Word, the only begotten Son, who was with God.
If He was a separate being then what kind of being? All of creation was spirit before Adam? The Word was with God. The Word was God. God uses the Word to create.What is a word before you speak it? Somehow I think Jesus was more than just a thought in the Father. Right?
Hi kenrch,
A divine being, the image of God.
God is Spirit so Jesus the image of God was/is Spirit. But not the Holy Spirit. Being a separate being The fulness of God would not that be full of the Holy Spirit? Hi kenrch,
Yes.
God is spirit but has soul nature and qualities too.
But the Son of God is separate as sons are and beloved of God.
He is the firstborn Son of God with the other sons shown in Jb 1-2.
He was not filled with the Holy Spirit till the start of his earthly ministry on earth.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 14 2006,05:32) Hi kenrch,
Yes.
God is spirit but has soul nature and qualities too.
But the Son of God is separate as sons are and beloved of God.
He is the firstborn Son of God with the other sons shown in Jb 1-2.
He was not filled with the Holy Spirit till the start of his earthly ministry on earth.
Ok so you are saying that the angelic beings were born and not created?He is the firstborn Son of God with the other sons shown in Jb 1-2.
Sounds like Michael the archangel. If all spirit beings were born then born from whom besides God? The Mormons believe that God has a wife!
I'll check back tomorrow. I'm going to talk to Jesus, pray to the Father and hit the hay, turn in, make bedtime, SLEEP
Good night and God bless,
kenrch
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 14 2006,05:46) Hi kenrch,
Created through The son of God. Only he has firstborn status.
The angles and everything were creayed through Jesus. But Jesus was born before being on earth. What about:
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, “the beginning of the creation of God;”I don't think there is enough scripture to tell us what Jesus was before the Word. I believe He was a Spirit being with all the fulness of the Father. Created The first and only created from the Father who was born flesh being the only begotten Son.
What do you think Nick?Hi kenrch,
We do know as the Word he is the image of God, uniquely derived solely from God so he was a spirit being, the beginning of the creation of God which God made through him.
Before the Word was spoken there was God.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 15 2006,22:08) Hi kenrch,
We do know as the Word he is the image of God, uniquely derived solely from God so he was a spirit being, the beginning of the creation of God which God made through him.
Before the Word was spoken there was God.
Nick,You say He was a spirit being? What kind of being then was the Father? The fact of the matter is, God didn't have a Son until He became one. I am not referring to angels, Adam and Israel. I'm referring to the Son of God.
Many are thrown by John's usage of Logos. John does not say “In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was the Father. John 1 beautifully teaches the concept of God manifest in flesh. In the beginning was the Word (Logos). The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man's word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).
In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer – as a play in the mind of a playwright – or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed – as a play that is enacted on stage. John 1 says the Logos existed in the mind of God from the beginning of time. When the fulness of time was come, God put that plan in action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of the man Jesus Christ. The Logos is God expressed. The Logos is “God uttering Himself.” In fact, TAB translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as, “The Word was God Himself.” Flanders and Cresson say, “The Word was God's means of self disclosure.” This thought is further brought out by verse 14, which says the incarnated Word had the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, and by verse 18, which says that the Son has declared the Father.
In Greek philosophy, the Logos came to mean reason or wisdom as the controlling principle of the universe. In John's day, some Greek philosophers and Jewish theologians influenced by Greek thought (especially the Jewish thinker, Philo of Alexandria) regarded the Logos as an inferior, secondary deity or as an emanation from God in time. Some Christian heresies, including an emerging form of Gnosticism, were already incorporating these theories into their doctrines, and therefore relegating Jesus to an inferior role. John deliberately used their own terminology to refute these doctrines and to declare the truth. The Word was not inferior to God; it was God (John 1:1). The Word did not emanate from God over a period of time; it was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was none other than the Word, or God, revealed in flesh. Note also that the Greek word pros, translated “with” in verse 1, is the same word translated “pertaining to” in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. John 1:1 could include in its meanings, therefore, the following: “The Word pertained to God and the Word was God,” or, “The Word belonged to God and was God.”
Hi typsrn
this is you opinion and it is a very popular one.“Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1).”
But a Word is expressed while a though or plan is not.
A plan cannot be with God but would be in God.
The Word was with God,
Who is spirit.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 19 2006,19:47) Hi typsrn
this is you opinion and it is a very popular one.“Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1).”
But a Word is expressed while a though or plan is not.
A plan cannot be with God but would be in God.
The Word was with God,
Who is spirit.
Nick,You must understand that John is dealing with God's plan as it relates to His Son. Your view of the Word as another God with God is in complete violation what God said about Himself in the Old Testament. I have gone over some of the passages with you already.
You say this is a very popular opinion. Say what? Since when did this become a popular opinion? Most believe as you do. The only difference between where you stand and where those that hold the trinity doctrine (concerning the “Word”)stand is, they believe the Word “person” to be unbegotten. While you believe the Word “person” to be begotten in eternity.
You say that “a Word is expressed while a thought or plan is not.” I strongly suggest that you do more research on the term “logos”. A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.
You have gone from being a trinitarian to being a binitarian (one who believes that the Father and Son are distinct divine personalities). You have gone from one heresy to another.
Hi typsrn,
Thank you for your reiterated opinion which not all share.
I believe what the bible says about the Son of God, the Word, who was made flesh for us. I do not believe he is a new deity as some would say but neither do I deny that his origins were divine as that is what the Word says about him in Phil 2.Hi ,
This is from the ISV website
“Does monogenes mean “Only-begotten” or “Unique”? The ISV renders John 3:16's “only begotten” as “unique”. This is also the rendering in the margin of the NASB. But I do not see how “unique” is the most accurate and most clear translation, which the ISV claims to be. Jesus is God's unique son in many ways. The way he is unique is not as clearly stated in the ISV as it is in the Greek, which states clearly his uniqueness is in being the only begotten son of God.The trouble is, the Greek isn't “clearly” (your word) saying “only-begotten”. The traditional argument about the problem is that if MONOGENES is derived from a root of the verb GINOMAI (to become), then the word means “only existing” and hence “unique”, but that if MONOGENES is derived from a root of the verb GENNAO (to beget), then the word means “only begotten”.”
If monogenes means just unique then the GENNAO part of the word is undervalued. It is to do with begetting and not just existence.
The trinitarians get around it by saying it is an everlasting process that has never been completed and never will be so that they can say he is a son, but not yet, and never will truly be!
I think there is an element too of sole derivation from God.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
