- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi All,
I copied the following from another thread. It was posted by t8.
Although I have never read this writing before today, I have discovered that Origen and I understand John 1:1 and the scriptures the same way. The writing is hard to understand at times, and so I've broken up Origen's words (the green part) and re-worded them to the way I understand them.
Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2
“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. (1)He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only.
1) Origen realizes that Greek was one of John's native languages, and that John surely knew what he was doing when he wrote “THE theos” in part b, but only “theos” in part c.
(2) He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this.
2) This part tells me that Origen believes “THE theos” of part b is the “uncreated cause of all things”, while “the Word” is NOT.
(3) As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word.
3) The theos who is over all is “THE theos” in John 1:1 – the one with the article.
(4) Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.
4) Origen is saying that there are many people who are confused about John 1:1. They don't WANT it to be talking about TWO “theos”, and so they invent many false doctrines to explain John's words away. They can't understand how “THE theos” could be WITH “theos” – without there being TWO “theos”. And they don't WANT there to be TWO “theos”, because they have falsely believed that the Bible only teaches of ONE.
(5) Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name,
5) These are the Trinitarians and Binarians. They deny that the Son has a distinct nature of his own, apart from the Father, and make him out to be the very God he is the Son of – only with a different name………. ie: One is “Father/Jehovah”, the other is “Son/Jesus”, but they are BOTH “God Almighty” in nature and in being.
(6) or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.
6) These are the non-preexisters. They deny the Son's divine nature, and consider him the same as the rest of mankind.
(7) To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God];
7) Origen reminds us that “THE theos” is the “Autotheos/God of Himself” – the ONLY one in existence who doesn't have a God of His own – and that even Jesus tells us as much by calling his God and Father “the only true God”.
(8) “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “.
8) There is truly one original “THE theos”, but others, who are made in the image of that original “THE theos”, are made “theos” by participation in the original theos' divinity. (As it is written, we will partake in divine nature. Also as it is written, I have called ye gods – sons of the Most High.)
(9) And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him,
9) Jesus is the firstborn of “THE theos”, and the first one to have ever been with “THE theos”. He was the first to attract to himself diety (divine nature) by participation in the divine nature of his own God, “THE theos”. Because of his being the firstborn, he is of a more exalted rank than all the “theos” who came after him.
(10) of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.”
10) The “God OF gods”, as attested by scripture, is still the God OF this firstborn “theos”.
(11) It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.
11)It was through this firstborn “theos” that all these others became “theos”. For the firstborn theos drew FROM “THE theos” in generous measure, that those others should be made “theos”.
(12) The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype.
12) The true theos is “THE theos”, and all who were subsequently made in His image are “theos” – images OF the Prototype. God Himself is the “Prototype”, ie: “original”, “first one”……… and all theos who came after Him, (ie: Jesus) are images OF Him.
(13) But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos, who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity,
13) Jesus is the archetype image of all those who came after him. He is the word who was with “THE theos” in the beginning, and by being continually with “THE theos”, he is himself deity (has divine nature). Dictionary.com points out that “prototype” and “archetype” are often confused with each other. The Greek word “prototypon” (prototype) refers to the original – the “first impression”. On the other hand, the Greek word “arkhetypon” (archetype) refers to the “first moulded”, or the “first mark of a blow”. The prototype is the original, and the archetype is the first image mad
e FROM the original – as can be easily understood from context of Origen's words.(14) not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
14) Jesus does NOT possess this diety of his own doing – but only by being continually with his own Father and God. Nor would Jesus continue to be theos if his continual presence with God was somehow interupted.
These are not my claims, nor my made up teachings. These things are the way I understand the words Origen wrote all those years ago. But although I didn't write these words, I believe they all fit into scripture nicely, and I agree with them.
Thoughts?
Mike
I have read almost all that can be read of Origen who was born in the 180 ths AD and was thought in Hebrew and Greek by his own Father who was a teacher in Alexandria ,
and I agree with you ,you have explain it very well ,something that I could never have done ,good work hope some will investigate and learn from it ,
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2013,19:47) Hi All, I copied the following from another thread. It was posted by t8.
Although I have never read this writing before today, I have discovered that Origen and I understand John 1:1 and the scriptures the same way. The writing is hard to understand at times, and so I've broken up Origen's words (the green part) and re-worded them to the way I understand them.
Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2
“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. (1)He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only.
1) Origen realizes that Greek was one of John's native languages, and that John surely knew what he was doing when he wrote “THE theos” in part b, but only “theos” in part c.
(2) He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this.
2) This part tells me that Origen believes “THE theos” of part b is the “uncreated cause of all things”, while “the Word” is NOT.
(3) As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word.
3) The theos who is over all is “THE theos” in John 1:1 – the one with the article.
(4) Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.
4) Origen is saying that there are many people who are confused about John 1:1. They don't WANT it to be talking about TWO “theos”, and so they invent many false doctrines to explain John's words away. They can't understand how “THE theos” could be WITH “theos” – without there being TWO “theos”. And they don't WANT there to be TWO “theos”, because they have falsely believed that the Bible only teaches of ONE.
(5) Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name,
5) These are the Trinitarians and Binarians. They deny that the Son has a distinct nature of his own, apart from the Father, and make him out to be the very God he is the Son of – only with a different name………. ie: One is “Father/Jehovah”, the other is “Son/Jesus”, but they are BOTH “God Almighty” in nature and in being.
(6) or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.
6) These are the non-preexisters. They deny the Son's divine nature, and consider him the same as the rest of mankind.
(7) To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God];
7) Origen reminds us that “THE theos” is the “Autotheos/God of Himself” – the ONLY one in existence who doesn't have a God of His own – and that even Jesus tells us as much by calling his God and Father “the only true God”.
(8) “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “.
8) There is truly one original “THE theos”, but others, who are made in the image of that original “THE theos”, are made “theos” by participation in the original theos' divinity. (As it is written, we will partake in divine nature. Also as it is written, I have called ye gods – sons of the Most High.)
(9) And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him,
9) Jesus is the firstborn of “THE theos”, and the first one to have ever been with “THE theos”. He was the first to attract to himself diety (divine nature) by participation in the divine nature of his own God, “THE theos”. Because of his being the firstborn, he is of a more exalted rank than all the “theos” who came after him.
(10) of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.”
10) The “God OF gods”, as attested by scripture, is still the God OF this firstborn “theos”.
(11) It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.
11)It was through this firstborn “theos” that all these others became “theos”. For the firstborn theos drew FROM “THE theos” in generous measure, that those others should be made “theos”.
(12) The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype.
12) The true theos is “THE theos”, and all who were subsequently made in His image are “theos” – images OF the Prototype. God Himself is the “Prototype”, ie: “original”, “first one”……… and all theos who came after Him, (ie: Jesus) are images OF Him.
(13) But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos, who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity,
13) Jesus is the archetype image of all those who came after him. He is the word who was with “THE theos” in the beginning, and by being continually with “THE theos”, he is himself deity (has divine nature). Dictionary.com points out that “prototype” and “archetype” are often confused with each other. The Greek word “prototypon” (prototype) refers to the orig
inal – the “first impression”. On the other hand, the Greek word “arkhetypon” (archetype) refers to the “first moulded”, or the “first mark of a blow”. The prototype is the original, and the archetype is the first image made FROM the original – as can be easily understood from context of Origen's words.(14) not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
14) Jesus does NOT possess this diety of his own doing – but only by being continually with his own Father and God. Nor would Jesus continue to be theos if his continual presence with God was somehow interupted.
These are not my claims, nor my made up teachings. These things are the way I understand the words Origen wrote all those years ago. But although I didn't write these words, I believe they all fit into scripture nicely, and I agree with them.
Thoughts?
Hi Mike,Amen.
Jn.1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Peace brother.
To all,
I cannot put my finger on it but where are there two theos in John 1:1. Is it a hinted at interpretation?
The Word was theos, means that the Logos was divine.
It doesn't mean that the Word was THE God.
If it did, then it would exclude the Father as God.Just the same as Eve was adam, as opposed to Eve was THE Adam.
The latter would mean that Eve was Adam to the exclusion of her husband.Quote (t8 @ Mar. 15 2013,16:37) The Word was theos, means that the Logos was divine.
It doesn't mean that the Word was THE God.
If it did, then it would exclude the Father as God.Just the same as Eve was adam, as opposed to Eve was THE Adam.
The latter would mean that Eve was Adam to the exclusion of her husband.
T8,Jehovah is his Word and his Word is him.
in what way is this true?
Here we go again…article theology! John, a poor uneducated fisherman who, I doubt knew Greek well enough to write it, wrote as inspired by God. There are at least a couple of times in the first chapter of John that have theos without an article and Origen and those who agree with him would be having to back pedal to be consistent with their article theology, imo.
For example:
John 1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
There is NO ARTICLE with theos, so does that mean John was sent by a god??? Do you see how this article theology fails merely 5 verses later?? Not only here, in this verse, but look at
John 1:18:
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
There is no article with the first theos, as a matter of fact, there IS an article with the second theos. So, now we have the reverse…if Origen' theory was true, the invisible God should be 'a god' and the verse would read like this:
No one has seen a god at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him.So, I don't know why this is still an argument.
It seems obvious as to what John is doing here if you realize that the Jews understood the 'Word of the LORD' as connected with the LORD in the OT. He was connecting the pre-flesh Jesus with that very 'Word of the LORD' that the Jews were SO FAMILIAR WITH, and with whom they called LORD and associated with the invisible LORD. The 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in visions was the image of the invisible LORD. Look at this story and notice that Abram called the Word of the LORD, 'YHVH'…the same 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in a vision. This was something that Abram SAW AND HEARD, not just heard.
Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
So, God is identifying the 'Word of the LORD' in the OT with the pre-flesh Jesus and goes on to further identify Him to the Word of the LORD in the OT by telling us that through Him all things were made. The LORD in the OT was often designated as the creator.
The 'Word' was the visible image of the invisible LORD, to the Jews and they called the Word, “LORD.'
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 16 2013,01:54) Here we go again…article theology! John, a poor uneducated fisherman who, I doubt knew Greek well enough to write it, wrote as inspired by God. There are at least a couple of times in the first chapter of John that have theos without an article and Origen and those who agree with him would be having to back pedal to be consistent with their article theology, imo. For example:
John 1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
There is NO ARTICLE with theos, so does that mean John was sent by a god??? Do you see how this article theology fails merely 5 verses later?? Not only here, in this verse, but look at
John 1:18:
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
There is no article with the first theos, as a matter of fact, there IS an article with the second theos. So, now we have the reverse…if Origen' theory was true, the invisible God should be 'a god' and the verse would read like this:
No one has seen a god at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him.So, I don't know why this is still an argument.
It seems obvious as to what John is doing here if you realize that the Jews understood the 'Word of the LORD' as connected with the LORD in the OT. He was connecting the pre-flesh Jesus with that very 'Word of the LORD' that the Jews were SO FAMILIAR WITH, and with whom they called LORD and associated with the invisible LORD. The 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in visions was the image of the invisible LORD. Look at this story and notice that Abram called the Word of the LORD, 'YHVH'…the same 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in a vision. This was something that Abram SAW AND HEARD, not just heard.
Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
So, God is identifying the 'Word of the LORD' in the OT with the pre-flesh Jesus and goes on to further identify Him to the Word of the LORD in the OT by telling us that through Him all things were made. The LORD in the OT was often designated as the creator.
The 'Word' was the visible image of the invisible LORD, to the Jews and they called the Word, “LORD.'
Kathy
Jn1;6
did God almighty send John send
or was he send through someone that came to him from God almighty is this not what John said ,”that someone came and told him about how that he will recognized the Messiah
yesJN 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Jn 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.Jn 1:14 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
it does not say the words of God became human (flesh)how can flesh or words from anyone make his living among the livings
?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 15 2013,13:54) Here we go again…article theology!
Hi Kathi,I understand your point. “THE theos” is not ALWAYS identified with the article in scripture. But I think that John was trying to DISTINGUISH “THE theos” from a DIFFERENT “theos” in 1:1, and that is why he made sure he used the article for the theos that the Word was WITH.
Origen obviously understood John's use of the article “only sometimes” in 1:1 the same way as I do, right?
But there are many other good points in his writing – which is why I painstakingly broke it down in to snippets. I thought that we could then discuss agreements or disagreements with particular snippets – instead of discussing the entire, rather large writing all at once.
Take point #5, for example. What are your thoughts about that one?
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2013,04:13) To all, I cannot put my finger on it but where are there two theos in John 1:1. Is it a hinted at interpretation?
Kerwin,There are TWO “things” that are called “theos” in John 1:1. One of these “theos” was said to have been WITH the other one of these “theos”.
Can one thing be “WITH” itself? Or does the word “WITH” imply TWO THINGS – one of which was WITH the other?
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 15 2013,11:54) Here we go again…article theology! John, a poor uneducated fisherman who, I doubt knew Greek well enough to write it, wrote as inspired by God. There are at least a couple of times in the first chapter of John that have theos without an article and Origen and those who agree with him would be having to back pedal to be consistent with their article theology, imo. For example:
John 1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
There is NO ARTICLE with theos, so does that mean John was sent by a god??? Do you see how this article theology fails merely 5 verses later?? Not only here, in this verse, but look at
John 1:18:
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
There is no article with the first theos, as a matter of fact, there IS an article with the second theos. So, now we have the reverse…if Origen' theory was true, the invisible God should be 'a god' and the verse would read like this:
No one has seen a god at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him.So, I don't know why this is still an argument.
It seems obvious as to what John is doing here if you realize that the Jews understood the 'Word of the LORD' as connected with the LORD in the OT. He was connecting the pre-flesh Jesus with that very 'Word of the LORD' that the Jews were SO FAMILIAR WITH, and with whom they called LORD and associated with the invisible LORD. The 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in visions was the image of the invisible LORD. Look at this story and notice that Abram called the Word of the LORD, 'YHVH'…the same 'Word of the LORD' that appeared in a vision. This was something that Abram SAW AND HEARD, not just heard.
Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
So, God is identifying the 'Word of the LORD' in the OT with the pre-flesh Jesus and goes on to further identify Him to the Word of the LORD in the OT by telling us that through Him all things were made. The LORD in the OT was often designated as the creator.
The 'Word' was the visible image of the invisible LORD, to the Jews and they called the Word, “LORD.'
Hi LU,Gen.17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Peace sister……
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 16 2013,08:27) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2013,04:13) To all, I cannot put my finger on it but where are there two theos in John 1:1. Is it a hinted at interpretation?
Kerwin,There are TWO “things” that are called “theos” in John 1:1. One of these “theos” was said to have been WITH the other one of these “theos”.
Can one thing be “WITH” itself? Or does the word “WITH” imply TWO THINGS – one of which was WITH the other?
Mike and all,That is implied (hinted at) teaching. It does not say God was with God; though many gods were with God in the beginning. It states the Word was God and was with God. That is one God and two Words. One is the Word that is God and and the second is the Word that is with God.
You understand that one bible can be with another and yet they are both one and the same word.
Why don't certain people use John 1:1 to claim that there are two Words that are one in being God's.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 16 2013,01:54) Here we go again…article theology! John, a poor uneducated fisherman who, I doubt knew Greek well enough to write it, wrote as inspired by God. There are at least a couple of times in the first chapter of John that have theos without an article and Origen and those who agree with him would be having to back pedal to be consistent with their article theology, imo. For example:
John 1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
There is NO ARTICLE with theos, so does that mean John was sent by a god??? Do you see how this article theology fails merely 5 verses later?? Not only here, in this verse, but look at
John 1:18:
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
There is no article with the first theos, as a matter of fact, there IS an article with the second theos. So, now we have the reverse…if Origen' theory was true, the invisible God should be 'a god' and the verse would read like this:
No one has seen a god at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him.
LU,What is these paragraphs is informative and expects the John to use theos consistently through his whole discourse. That seems to be a reasonable expectation.
Nevertheless there are not two Gods mentioned in John 1:1. There us instead 1 God and 2 Words. The first is God and the second is with God.
This is nothing that confuse anyone for there can be two bibles, one that is with the other, and yet they are the same word.
2 Words that are 1 in being God's.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2013,23:39) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 15 2013,16:37) The Word was theos, means that the Logos was divine.
It doesn't mean that the Word was THE God.
If it did, then it would exclude the Father as God.Just the same as Eve was adam, as opposed to Eve was THE Adam.
The latter would mean that Eve was Adam to the exclusion of her husband.
T8,Jehovah is his Word and his Word is him.
in what way is this true?
It's not hard to understand.Without the article it is not identifying anyone, it is qualifying.
Eve was THE Adam is wrong.
Eve was adam is right.adam means man.
God created adam, male and female.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 16 2013,18:11)
It's not hard to understand.Without the article it is not identifying anyone, it is qualifying.
Eve was THE Adam is wrong.
Eve was adam is right.adam means man.
God created adam, male and female.
T8 and all,Adam was THE Adam is right.
Adam was adam is right.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the god, and the Word was god.
There was a man sent from god, whose name was John.
No one has seen god at any time
Jehovah is god. The Jehovah is god.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,19:57) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 16 2013,18:11)
It's not hard to understand.Without the article it is not identifying anyone, it is qualifying.
Eve was THE Adam is wrong.
Eve was adam is right.adam means man.
God created adam, male and female.
T8 and all,Adam was THE Adam is right.
Adam was adam is right.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the god, and the Word was god.
There was a man sent from god, whose name was John.
No one has seen god at any time
Jehovah is god. The Jehovah is god.
KerwinQuote In the beginning was the Word, what beginning does it talk about
it is obvious not the beginning of THE GOD almighty ,because he his without beginning ,AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT IT IS NOT HIS ABILITY IN TALKING THAT HE CREATED OR ADD A BEGINNING ,BECAUSE IF YOU DO SAY THIS THEN THE GOD ALMIGHTY WAS NOT PERFECT OR COMPLETE WITHIN HIMSELF,AND SO WAS CREATED,so it is understand that it talks about the BEING CALLED “”THE WORD”
and what do we know about him
1)
Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,it seems that here John and Paul agree to who he his right ? yes.
2)Jn 1:14 “”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.
we all understand that John(the apostle) talks about Jesus Christ right ? yes.
reason he compered Moses and Jesus Christ like this ;Jn 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Jn 1:26 “I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know.
Jn 1:27 He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”YES NO ONE KNEW HIM AND YET HE WAS AMONG THEM ,AND JOHN THE BAPTIST CAME TO REVEAL HIM,
Jn 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
THIS IS HOW HE REVEAL HIM;
Jn 1:33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
Jn 1:34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.”JOHN THE BAPTIST CERTIFIED HIM TO BE THE SON OF GOD ,NOT THE GOD ALMIGHTY JUST THE SON OF HIM,
LOOK WHAT JOHN SAYS NEXT;Jn 1:30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’
THAT ,JESUS THAT HE CALLED THE SON OF THE GOD WAS A MAN BUT HE SAYS HE EXISTED BEFORE HIM ,and we all know that John was 6 month older than Jesus ,
Jesus also received the name ;Rev 19:13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
1Jn 5:9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
1Jn 5:10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.so the beginning that John the apostle talks about his the beginning of creation ,and the reason for “THE WORD “to be there is because THROUGH HIM ALL OTHER CREATION WAS CREATED ;Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning,
Rev 1:2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is,”” the word of God”” and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecyRev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God,(THIS IS NOT THE GOD ALMIGHTY BUT THE SON ) “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 16 2013,04:11) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2013,23:39) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 15 2013,16:37) The Word was theos, means that the Logos was divine.
It doesn't mean that the Word was THE God.
If it did, then it would exclude the Father as God.Just the same as Eve was adam, as opposed to Eve was THE Adam.
The latter would mean that Eve was Adam to the exclusion of her husband.
T8,Jehovah is his Word and his Word is him.
in what way is this true?
It's not hard to understand.Without the article it is not identifying anyone, it is qualifying.
Eve was THE Adam is wrong.
Eve was adam is right.adam means man.
God created adam, male and female.
Hi T8,And the Word is God??
Peace brother.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,03:47) It does not say God was with God; though many gods were with God in the beginning.
Kerwin, if you can easily acknowledge that many gods were with God in the beginning, why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that Jesus was one of them?Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,03:47) It states the Word was God and was with God. That is one God and two Words. One is the Word that is God and and the second is the Word that is with God.
The definite article that precedes the word “logos” indicates that it is the same “THE logos” in both cases.Kerwin, who or what do you suppose this “other” logos was? Two words? One that was with God, and a different one that was God? I don't get it.
To me, it seems like just another one of your attempts to twist the scriptures so that Jesus doesn't come out pre-existing his flesh.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,03:47) You understand that one bible can be with another and yet they are both one and the same word.
That statement actually argues AGAINST your claim of TWO words – because you are saying that both Bibles are indeed one and the same word.Kerwin, can a Bible be with God and be God?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
