Origen's understanding of John 1:1

[abe]

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 23 2013,10:56)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 23 2013,06:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,15:26) My point (well, actually Ed's) exactly, 2B!   Adam is the SON of God.  But if Adam was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God, who is already “the Son of God”, as you claim, then Adam would really be the GRANDSON of God. Same with Jesus. Hi Mike, Is the Spirit of God the same as the Holy Spirit? Please Yes or No? Peace brother.. abe do not mix up,the fact that GOD almighty HIS a spirit BEING an entity on his own , so his spirit or holy spirit his not his being but his will,mind,plan,etc; what GOD want that is what will happen ,and he as the power to do it ,

Hi T,

Adam is the SON of God.  But if Adam was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God, who is already “the Son of God”, as you claim, then Adam would really be the GRANDSON of God.

Are they saying Jesus is the GRANDSON of God?

Peace brother…..

[terraricca]

Quote (abe @ Mar. 24 2013,03:20)

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 23 2013,10:56) Quote (abe @ Mar. 23 2013,06:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,15:26) My point (well, actually Ed's) exactly, 2B!   Adam is the SON of God.  But if Adam was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God, who is already “the Son of God”, as you claim, then Adam would really be the GRANDSON of God. Same with Jesus. Hi Mike, Is the Spirit of God the same as the Holy Spirit? Please Yes or No? Peace brother.. abe do not mix up,the fact that GOD almighty HIS a spirit BEING an entity on his own , so his spirit or holy spirit his not his being but his will,mind,plan,etc; what GOD want that is what will happen ,and he as the power to do it , Hi T, Adam is the SON of God.  But if Adam was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God, who is already “the Son of God”, as you claim, then Adam would really be the GRANDSON of God. Are they saying Jesus is the GRANDSON  of  God? Peace brother…..

abe

let get it strait ;

Jesus his the son of God as per his first creation and so he his created as a spirit being with the nature of the father;

Adam is the human son of God due to him being the first human creature created ,but Adam his not an equal son of God to Christ but on earth Adam would be ,because he his the first born of all humans .

God created all things through Christ but Christ his not the father so he can not be the holy spirit of him that created him GOD his the father of both,

but all living creatures birds ,fish, animals are also created through Christ ,by God the father this does not make them the holy spirit right yes

so God the father to him belong the truth ,the holy spirit ,

to his son ,Christ belong the glory of a son ,and so he follows the directions of the spirit of his father because he love him ,just as I do and all of us should ,

Adam was the human son of God and so God make a god out of him by given to Adam the total supervision of the earth ,in a way he would be God's words or mouth,

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2013,14:57)

So, since theos in John 1:1c is written in the nominative case and not as an adjective or a noun that is not written in the nominative case, we can't say that is must not be one particular God.

Well I don't know about all the nominative stuff, but it seems easy to me that 1:1 is about TWO gods – one of whom was WITH the other.

And I know that you and I agree on this point.

[mikeboll64]

(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.

As I understand Origen's words above, he is making a distinction (much like John did) between the “theos who is over all” in part b, and the other theos mentioned in part c – the one called “the Word”.

In other words, Origen didn't think the Word was the “theos who is over all”, but a “lessor theos”. I agree with him.

Any comments?

[Lightenup]

Yes Mike, like I have said…God with God. The unbegotten God with the begotten God.

I do not agree with t8 who thinks that the theos in 1c means 'divine.' He says that 'the word was divine' but that would make 'divine' an adjective and not a noun. Theos in 1c is a noun that is in the nominative case. Also, it cannot mean 'the word was godkind' because it would say theos in the genitive and have the word 'of.' In other words, the word was of godkind.

[mikeboll64]

I agree that “divine” is a flawed translation.  Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says: The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”

But I agree with t8 that the theos in part c is theos in a qualitative sense, meaning “godkind”.  I don't agree with you that the genitive (of) would have to be used to convey this thought.  You can say, “he is man” without saying “he is OF mankind”.

The NETNotes scholars also agree that there are THREE possibilities for 1:1c………

1.  THE god – which they say is ruled out by part b.
2.  A god – which makes the most sense to me.
3.  god in a qualitative sense – which is what t8 believes.

The thing is that #2 and #3 are saying basically the same exact thing.  For example, if one is “qualitatively man”, then that one is “a man”.  So if the Word is “qualitatively god”, then the Word is “a god”.

So t8 and I believe the same thing in this case.  It's just that I use the indefinite article “a”, and he doesn't.

[Proclaimer]

Good post Mike.

Although I know that 'theos' and 'divine' are different words, I use it to help the reader understand what is meant. Rather than saying it is God himself, it is saying it is like God or derived from his nature. I think of it like this.

Man is flesh.
God is divine.

The Man has flesh nature.
The God has god nature or divine nature.

So when it says that the Word was divine or godkind and then became flesh or mankind, that answers to Philippians 2:5-7
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Whether we talk about nouns, verbs, or adjectives, I believe the correct sense to understand Jesus origin is that he existed in God's form and took on man's form. Or he existed as theos and became adam. Without trying to confuse the issue, he also is called the second Adam, just as we had a first Adam.

[Lightenup]

Here is what NET notes concludes with John 1:1c:

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

Did you read that Mike, NET notes concludes that 1c should read, “And the Word was fully God” (note the capital 'G' btw) which affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
https://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+1

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 23 2013,22:56)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 23 2013,18:08) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 23 2013,06:55) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 22 2013,17:02) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 22 2013,16:09) Quote (2besee @ Mar. 22 2013,23:52) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 22 2013,22:23) how can Jesus be a man only, and also be the Holy Spirit. Please explain it simply. The Holy Spirit was IN HIM, speaking THROUGH Him. Was that simple enough? The two became as if one. Agreed. So when the Holy Spirit speaks through me what is happening. Am I the Spirit? Is this the point? T8, And T8 spoke and said “let the cat out.” And the Spirit spoke and said “let the cat out.” And Yawheh spoke and said “let the cat out.” “Let the cat out” was said once and then from the mouth of t8's flesh. kerwin so if millions of people say “let the cat out “” they then would also all have the holy spirit right ?? yes or no T, If spirit said “let the cat out” through 1 million human mouths then those humans would be saying “let the cat out. If 1 million human said “let the cat out” but it was not the spirit speaking then their words would be of men. In the first case the answer is that yes the million people are carried along by the Spirit. In the second case the answer is no the million people are not carried along by the Spirit. but you have no clue how to see which one of the two groups would be true to the spirit right

T,

Those that live by the Spirit are true to it. By their fruits they are known.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 24 2013,13:28)

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 23 2013,22:56) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 23 2013,18:08) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 23 2013,06:55) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 22 2013,17:02) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 22 2013,16:09) Quote (2besee @ Mar. 22 2013,23:52) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 22 2013,22:23) how can Jesus be a man only, and also be the Holy Spirit. Please explain it simply. The Holy Spirit was IN HIM, speaking THROUGH Him. Was that simple enough? The two became as if one. Agreed. So when the Holy Spirit speaks through me what is happening. Am I the Spirit? Is this the point? T8, And T8 spoke and said “let the cat out.” And the Spirit spoke and said “let the cat out.” And Yawheh spoke and said “let the cat out.” “Let the cat out” was said once and then from the mouth of t8's flesh. kerwin so if millions of people say “let the cat out “” they then would also all have the holy spirit right ?? yes or no T, If spirit said “let the cat out” through 1 million human mouths then those humans would be saying “let the cat out. If 1 million human said “let the cat out” but it was not the spirit speaking then their words would be of men. In the first case the answer is that yes the million people are carried along by the Spirit. In the second case the answer is no the million people are not carried along by the Spirit. but you have no clue how to see which one of the two groups would be true to the spirit right T, Those that live by the Spirit are true to it.  By their fruits they are known.

Kerwin

Agreed,but also the heart,and so no man can know only God can see men s heart

So as men we do have only one clue and that is the actions or deeds that are outward ,and that is only 50% of the time true because of the heart,right

[kerwin]

T,

A man who loves righteousness but is still bound to sin bears fruits that are bad until he receives the desire of his inner being and is freed from his chains.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 24 2013,21:51)

T, A man who loves righteousness but is still bound to sin bears fruits that are bad until he receives the desire of his inner being and is freed from his chains.

K

you miss my point ,

so try only to understand what you saying ,you cannot see the heart of men and so you,me have no power to judge but ourselves,and that was my point all along,

so if someone as the spirit of truth in him this can only be detected from our side if we know the person in the flesh and interact with him ,

and so what you say in the beginning ;

Quote

T8, And T8 spoke and said “let the cat out.” And the Spirit spoke and said “let the cat out.” And Yawheh spoke and said “let the cat out.” “Let the cat out” was said once and then from the mouth of t8's flesh.

is false ,because only God can see it ,and many even to day are hypocrites ,double minded ,AND IF THEY READ THE SCRIPTURES ,IT WILL BE IN THE HEARER THAT THE DIFFERENCE WILL BE NOT IN THE READER ,THIS IS WHY JESUS SAID ;

Mt 23:2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
Mt 23:3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

so they preach the word but they themselves do not follow it ,

and many live in self righteousness this also is against God,and so is not godly love,

[kerwin]

T,

My parable is not false.

When the Spirit speaks through a person that person speaks, jest as was the case of the Prophets.

When the Spirit speaks Jehovah speaks via it, since he dwells in believers by his Spirit.

In some cases a person that is without the Spirit acts like one with the Spirit.

We can judge a person's fruit but not their final destination.

[2besee]

To all,
Not only when the spirit speaks but also when the spirit moves us to feel compassion and love for others. And to act.

And to Mike…

You ask the question “Are we all in agreement that John 1:1 is speaking about two God's” – and I say “NO”. I am not in agreement with you.

John 1:1 is talking about the one God.

No amount of scholary/Greek studies will help you with this.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2013,00:37)

So when it says that the Word was divine or godkind and then became flesh or mankind, that answers to Philippians 2:5-7…………..

Agreed.  And don't get me wrong – I'm not arguing that the Word WASN'T divine.  Since Jesus is the firstborn Son of the divine Almighty God, chances are that he also partakes in divine nature………. and has since the day God brought him forth into existence.

I'm just trying to keep it real.  Since John didn't write “theos” in the adjectival form in part c, that particular statement is not saying the Word was divine.  You are correct that John was telling us that the Word was qualitatively “god” – which means he was “a god” who was with “THE god” in the beginning.

I agree with Origen that the words “THE theos” refer to the uncreated cause of all things, and therefore, the qualitative “god” in part c refers to one who is a god, but not “THE uncreated cause of all things”.

Are you with me and Origen on that point?

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 25 2013,02:49)

T, My parable is not false.   When the Spirit speaks through a person that person speaks, jest as was the case of the Prophets. When the Spirit speaks Jehovah speaks via it, since he dwells in believers by his Spirit. In some cases a person that is without the Spirit acts like one with the Spirit. We can judge a person's fruit but not their final destination.

K

not all are prophets ,and we are not in Christ times neither

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2013,00:52)

Here is what NET notes concludes with John 1:1c: sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence. Did you read that Mike, NET notes concludes that 1c should read, “And the Word was fully God” (note the capital 'G' btw) which affirms that the Word and God are one in essence. https://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+1

Absolutely I read that part, Kathi.  I've probably read the NET's footnote for John 1:1 more than I've read any other footnote.  I almost know it by heart, word for word.  

I absolutely love the NET Bible translation, and their NETNotes.  I love the way these 25 TRINITARIAN scholars so often identify the usual Trinitarian “proof texts” as nothing more than wishful thinking.

That being said, these guys ARE Trinitarians in the end.  Which means they DO occasionally let their own wishful thinking get the better of their common sense.  The part you've quoted is one of those times.  It is easy for anyone to see that their technical points are spot on.  They easily observe that the theos in part c cannot possibly be “the person of God”, because any chance of that is ruled out by part b: “the Word was WITH God”.  (Notice how they say “THE person of God” – as if they acknowledge God is only one person.)  But then they go off on a wishful thinking tangent, concluding that for any god to be with “the person of God”, it must mean that other god is everything single thing “the person of God” is.  Hmmmm………………   Where exactly do they come up with that strange conclusion?  What if the statement was about Satan being with “THE God” in the beginning, and also being “a god”?  Would they then come to the same conclusion……… that everything “THE God” was, Satan was too?  Would they conclude anything about “essence” if the statement was about Satan?  Of course not.

Like you, they too WANT Jesus to be God Almighty, because they are Trinitarians.  And like you, they sometimes take liberties with the words of the scriptures, imagining those words are teaching us lessons – lessons which really aren't even there.  In other words, like you, they sometimes let their imaginations and wishful thinkings run rampant.

I mean really…………. “FULLY God”?    Where in the Greek do YOU see the words “and the Word was FULLY God”?

And did you notice how they came to that translation?  Here is their explanation- from the same footnote:

However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos………is one in essence with God the Father.

Do you see that, Kathi?  They did a SURVEY to find out which translation would best convey to the average reader that God and the Word were “one in essence”.  Yet there is nothing in John's words that speak of any “essence”, is there?  Instead, John merely wrote about one theos who was with THE theos in the beginning.

So can you see what I mean?  They are correct on the technical points, like when they say:  From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c  

Hmmm……….. that sounds strangely familiar – as if someone like t8 keeps saying the same thing.  

They even bring up Moffatt:  However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God.

Can you read between their lines, Kathi?  They are saying that they don't want their readers to even have the chance to make up their own minds about what John 1:1 teaches.  They don't like “the Word was divine” because “divine” isn't used “exclusively of God” – and they WANT their readers to be FORCED into believing that this Word WAS God.

This is why they ultimatly ADDED the word “fully” into their translation – even though it is not there in John's words.

So in closing, when the NETNotes scholars stick to the technical points, they are spot on in most cases.  But once they decide to start FORCING their readers to believe like they do, by ADDING words to the scriptures, they have passed momentarily from good Greek scholars to wishful thinkers who are hell-bent on promoting their own, personal beliefs – regardless of whether or not the scripture actually teaches that belief.

They passed the point of good scholarship with their translation of John 1:1, and also with their definitions of the Greek word “pnuema” – one of which is, “the third person in the Triune Godhead”. As if that thought is ever taught in any scripture.

But I overlook their few Trinitarian wishful thinkings, because much of what they write is beautifully spot on.

peace,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ Mar. 24 2013,15:25)

And to Mike… You ask the question “Are we all in agreement that John 1:1 is speaking about two God's” – and I say “NO”.  I am not in agreement with you. John 1:1 is talking about the one God. No amount of scholary/Greek studies will help you with this.

Thank you, 2B, for getting this thread back on course.  We are, after all, supposed to be discussing Origen's understanding of John 1:1 here, right?  

As for your comment, I don't think it takes any amount of “scholary/Greek studies” to know that “the one God” cannot possibly be with “the one God”.  I think a kindergarten education should suffice to know this.

Who else has a comment about my last “Origen” post? Origen, Kathi, Pierre, t8, and myself all agree that 1:1 is about TWO gods, one of whom was WITH the other.

Kerwin? How about you? The last I knew, you were slowly coming around to this obvious conclusion. What are your thoughts on the matter?

How about you Abe?

[abe]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2013,09:32)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 22 2013,18:52) Hi Mike, Is the Spirit of God the same as the Holy Spirit? Yes.

Hi Mike,

Gal.4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Spirit of His SON. Can you explain?

Peace brother..

[terraricca]

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 24 2013,05:57)

Quote (abe @ Mar. 24 2013,03:20) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 23 2013,10:56) Quote (abe @ Mar. 23 2013,06:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,15:26) My point (well, actually Ed's) exactly, 2B!   Adam is the SON of God.  But if Adam was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God, who is already “the Son of God”, as you claim, then Adam would really be the GRANDSON of God. Same with Jesus. Hi Mike, Is the Spirit of God the same as the Holy Spirit? Please Yes or No? Peace brother.. abe do not mix up,the fact that GOD almighty HIS a spirit BEING an entity on his own , so his spirit or holy spirit his not his being but his will,mind,plan,etc; what GOD want that is what will happen ,and he as the power to do it , Hi T, Adam is the SON of God.  But if Adam was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God, who is already “the Son of God”, as you claim, then Adam would really be the GRANDSON of God. Are they saying Jesus is the GRANDSON  of  God? Peace brother….. abe let get it strait ; Jesus his the son of God as per his first creation and so he his created as a spirit being with the nature of the father; Adam is the human son of God due to him being the first human creature created ,but Adam his not an equal son of God to Christ but on earth Adam would be ,because he his the first born of all humans . God created all things through Christ but Christ his not the father so he can not be the holy spirit of him that created him GOD his the father of both, but all living creatures birds ,fish, animals are also created through Christ ,by God the father this does not make them the holy spirit right yes so God the father to him belong the truth ,the holy spirit , to his son ,Christ belong the glory of a son ,and so he follows the directions of the spirit of his father because he love him ,just as I do and all of us should , Adam was the human son of God and so God make a god out of him by given to Adam the total supervision of the earth ,in a way he would be God's words or mouth,

abe

?

[Author]

Posts