Origen's understanding of John 1:1

[mikeboll64]

(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.

Who here refuses to accept John 1:1 the way it was written, due to a fear that John was proclaiming two different gods?

Gene? Kerwin? Ed? 2B?

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2013,19:42)

(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. Who here refuses to accept John 1:1 the way it was written, due to a fear that John was proclaiming two different gods? Gene?  Kerwin?  Ed?  2B?

Mike,
you asked:

Quote

Who here refuses to accept John 1:1 the way it was written, due to a fear that John was proclaiming two different gods?

t8 refuses to accept this, Mike. He so badly does not want theos to mean God/god that he turns the noun into an adjective to appear to mean godlike, or godly. Ignatius, the disciple of John who wrote John 1:1 calls the Son, God, as well as His Father.

God with God.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2013,11:42)

(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. Who here refuses to accept John 1:1 the way it was written, due to a fear that John was proclaiming two different gods? Gene?  Kerwin?  Ed?  2B?

Hi Mike,

The Greek wasn't written in the way the N.W.T. translates it. Furthermore
your 'spin' of another God goes in stark contradiction to Isaiah 44:8…

    “Ye are even my witnesses.
    Is there a God beside me? yea,
    there is no God; I know not any.” (Isa 44:8)

You just can't ignore this verse Mike. This verse MUST BE
incorporated into your understanding of Scripture as a whole.
So please explain EXACTLY how it does fit into your understanding?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ April 01 2013,17:06)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2013,18:47) God the Father, sent God the Son. Two persons in unity, not melded together. No fail here, just rocky soil that heard this before but the wind blew it away. Oh so you are unique in that God is not a substance as the Trinitarians teach. So God HIM is really THEY. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

In this one verse, the LORD calls Israel a 'them' and a 'him.'

Hosea 14:4I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him.

You have a problem with the way God words things, t8?

First you have failed 'article theology' from John 1:1.
Now you have failed 'pronoun theology.' You don't think a 'him' can be a 'them/they.'

Your problem is with scripture, not with me.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 31 2013,14:38)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2013,23:24) ………i didn't ignore it for some trick. I just spoke about what I thought was his main point. I don't have time to always address everything…………. And by His simple will the Word sprang forth……… became the firstbegotten work of the Father…………. [the Word] we know to be the Beginning of the world (cf. Rev. 3:14)……… But He came into being………. so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him. My point was not that the words of Tatian are any more “scripture” than say, the words of Athanasius.  Instead, I was pointing out (along with t8) how your eyes so easily glossed over the important points I've reposted above, and focused only on the last part, which is, like you say, explaining how the begetting of the Word did not lessen the “Word-Power” of Him who begat the Word. This is also how you focus on the scriptures, Kathi.  You ignore these following PLANKS………….. Jesus was begotten BY God. (Psalm 2:7, John 3:16) Jesus is a creation OF God. (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14) Jesus is the Son OF God. (Matt 16:16) Jesus is the Word/Spokesman OF God. (John 1:1, Rev 19:13) Jesus is the Messiah/Christ/Anointed One OF God. (Luke 2:11, Acts 2:36) Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb OF God. (John 1:29, Rev 7:10) Jesus is the Holy one OF God.   (Mark 1:24, John 6:69) Jesus is a prophet OF God. (Luke 4:24, Acts 3:22) Jesus is an angel/messenger OF God.  (John 8:28, 12:49, Galatians 4:14, Revelation 22:16) Jesus is the mediator BETWEEN God and men. (1 Tim 2:5) Jesus is a Priest OF God. (Heb 5:10) Jesus is a Servant OF God. (Acts 4:30) Jesus OBEYS God. (John 8:29, 12:49) Jesus WORSHIPS God. (John 4:22) Jesus says his God is greater than him, and all. (John 14:28, 10:29) Jesus says that our God is also his own God. (John 20:17, Rev 3:12) Jesus distinguishes himself as someone OTHER THAN his God. (John 10:36, 17:3) Jesus was sent BY God. (Gal 4:4) Jesus sits at the right hand OF God. (Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33) Jesus rules in the power, authority, and name OF God. (Micah 5:4, Matt 28:18) Jesus will hand the reign of the Kingdom back to his own God. (1 Cor 15:24, 28) ………. and instead search tirelessly for little SPECKS that can be misconstrued to fit around the doctrine you've already made up in your mind. In this “Tatian” case, you completely ignored that the Word “sprang forth”, and was the “firstbegotten WORK of the Father”.  You ignored that he was “the beginning of the world (ie: things that were created)”, and that he “came into being”. See how you glossed over all of these scripturally supported things in order to focus ONLY on the part of the quote with which you could agree? Perhaps if you are able to realize that you do this also with scripture, you might be able to slowly correct this comprehension flaw you have.

Mike,

Tatian:

Quote

Chapter V.—The Doctrine of the Christians as to the Creation of the World. God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (ὑπόστασις) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power (διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως), the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists.433 And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation,434 not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function,435 does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, has not divested of the Logos-power Him who begat Him. I myself, for instance, talk, and you hear; yet, certainly, I who converse do not become destitute of speech (λόγος) by the transmission of speech, but by the utterance of my voice I endeavour to reduce to order the unarranged matter in your minds. And as the Logos,436 begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world, having first created for Himself the necessary matter, so also I, in imitation of the Logos, being begotten again,437 and having become possessed of the truth, am trying to reduce to order the confused matter which is kindred with myself. For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.

More from Tatian:

Quote

Chapter XXI.—Doctrines of the Christians and Greeks Respecting God Compared. We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man.

Tatian says that God, in the beginning, was alone, but the Logos was in Him.

Tatian also said this:
And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation,434 not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function,435 does not render him deficient from whom it is taken.

So, the Logos (Son) that was in Him springs forth. Sounds like an unborn is born.

The Logos (Son), not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. This does not say that the Logos (Son) becomes the first creation of the Father. We are told that the Logos was already in the Father before coming forth. Tatian tells us that this Logos has a choice in coming forth…the Logos participates in this. The Logos (Son) was brought forth, not in vain (not willy nilly) but on purpose and for purpose…for the work that the Logos (Son) was to do.

The Logos existed before He was brought forth…like I have been telling you for some time now.

The Logos was the beginning of the creation of God because He was the power of the creation.

Tatian sees the Father and the Logos as an eternal unity where the Father brought the
Logos forth from within Himself.

So, there, Mike…once again, I did not specifically address the above the first time but I already explained that to you. As you can see that Tatian and I both agree that the Logos was in the Father and was the power of creation, not the creation itself.

So, are there other church fathers that you want to discuss that agree that the Logos was in the Father and then begotten from the Father as I have been telling you?

In other words, Tatian doe not agree with your theology that the Logos was a creation.

[Lightenup]

Mike, contd.
You said:

Quote

Jesus was begotten BY God. (Psalm 2:7, John 3:16) Jesus is a creation OF God. (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14) Jesus is the Son OF God. (Matt 16:16) Jesus is the Word/Spokesman OF God. (John 1:1, Rev 19:13) Jesus is the Messiah/Christ/Anointed One OF God. (Luke 2:11, Acts 2:36) Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb OF God. (John 1:29, Rev 7:10) Jesus is the Holy one OF God.   (Mark 1:24, John 6:69) Jesus is a prophet OF God. (Luke 4:24, Acts 3:22) Jesus is an angel/messenger OF God.  (John 8:28, 12:49, Galatians 4:14, Revelation 22:16) Jesus is the mediator BETWEEN God and men. (1 Tim 2:5) Jesus is a Priest OF God. (Heb 5:10) Jesus is a Servant OF God. (Acts 4:30) Jesus OBEYS God. (John 8:29, 12:49) Jesus WORSHIPS God. (John 4:22) Jesus says his God is greater than him, and all. (John 14:28, 10:29) Jesus says that our God is also his own God. (John 20:17, Rev 3:12) Jesus distinguishes himself as someone OTHER THAN his God. (John 10:36, 17:3) Jesus was sent BY God. (Gal 4:4) Jesus sits at the right hand OF God. (Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33) Jesus rules in the power, authority, and name OF God. (Micah 5:4, Matt 28:18) Jesus will hand the reign of the Kingdom back to his own God. (1 Cor 15:24, 28)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Unbegotten God) and the Word was God…(the only begotten God).

The Unbegotten God sent the only Begotten God into the world as an offspring of man after the only Begotten God emptied Himself to become a bondservant to the Unbegotten God and the people that He came to save.

This understanding fits all your verses when correctly translated. He was not created, He was eternally within God, the Father and was God, the Son who became begotten and the only begotten God.

The First Root of Jesse (the Father) sent the Second Root of Jesse (the Son) into the world as the Branch/shoot of Jesse (the God/Man).

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 02 2013,18:40)

In this one verse, the LORD calls Israel a 'them' and a 'him.' Hosea 14:4I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him. You have a problem with the way God words things, t8? First you have failed 'article theology' from John 1:1. Now you have failed 'pronoun theology.' You don't think a 'him' can be a 'them/they.' Your problem is with scripture, not with me.

Back to the point Kathi.

Call God “them”, otherwise where is your confidence in your own teaching. It's called “Eating your own dog food” in the software industry.

BTW, the example you gave is weak. It appears that more translations use the words 'from them' and older Bibles like the KJV use 'from him'. Might have something to do with the Textus Receptus. Haven't got time to check.

Also, if you follow this link, you will see that 'from him' is not underlined. Why is that, I do not know. Perhaps it denotes that it is not part of the text. Perhaps added in, I don't know.
http://bible.worthwhile.com/bible.p….=14&w=4

Regardless, I would like to see you at least be straight up about what you teach and publicly (on Heaven Net) call God  “them” instead of “him”. That way at least you are consistent like us because we call God “Him” “Whom”, etc. And then our views are distinguished and our teachings are supported by our everyday language too. I say this because I think that you are trying to sound like us, because deep down you know that God is a “Him” in scripture. But you should speak the same as you teach. That is what I think. It is called being upfront and honest.

[Proclaimer]

Kathi you are getting all confused over what the Logos was before it was with God. The early fathers taught much on this subject and basically said that the Word Power that was in God was brought forth as the first work.

It is quite something else to say that the Word Power in God was a different mind to God, even though it was in him (his mind).

I can imagine all kinds of things, but until I actually create it or bring it forth it is just an idea or an attribute.

[Proclaimer]

Kathi your root and shoot arguements honestly make me laugh.
All I can see is you shooting yourself in the foot. Shoot and foot.

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ April 02 2013,10:18)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2013,11:42) (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. Who here refuses to accept John 1:1 the way it was written, due to a fear that John was proclaiming two different gods? Gene?  Kerwin?  Ed?  2B? Hi Mike, The Greek wasn't written in the way the N.W.T. translates it. Furthermore your 'spin' of another God goes in stark contradiction to Isaiah 44:8…     “Ye are even my witnesses.     Is there a God beside me? yea,     there is no God; I know not any.” (Isa 44:8) You just can't ignore this verse Mike. This verse MUST BE incorporated into your understanding of Scripture as a whole. So please explain EXACTLY how it does fit into your understanding? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Edj

Wen are you going to learn that scriptures do not lie

Their is NO other God than God almighty the creator of all things ,none like him ,never was,and will be ,

But this does not mean that their are no other lesser gods ,

Like in a company only ONE can be President ,but you may have multiple vice PRESIDENTS in all the variant divisions of that same company,this is done so that they would not be hundreds of people needed to come to the meeting to explain what is going on in their section of the company,

[Ed J]

Hi Pierre,

So “GOD” saying there are no other Gods is wrong then?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ April 02 2013,20:21)

Hi Pierre, So “GOD” saying there are no other Gods is wrong then? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Edj

What is it you did not understand from my quote

[Ed J]

Quote (terraricca @ April 03 2013,02:25)

Quote (Ed J @ April 02 2013,20:21) Hi Pierre, So “GOD” saying there are no other Gods is wrong then? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Edj What is it you did not understand from my quote

Your quote seems to be ignoring the verse.
I'm asking you (I mean Mike) to explain the verse –
INSTEAD YOU REITERATE YOUR OVERALL UNDERSTANDING.

When responding to me – PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS – no speeches!

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ April 03 2013,00:21)

Quote (terraricca @ April 03 2013,02:25) Quote (Ed J @ April 02 2013,20:21) Hi Pierre, So “GOD” saying there are no other Gods is wrong then? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Edj What is it you did not understand from my quote Your quote seems to be ignoring the verse. I'm asking you (I mean Mike) to explain the verse – INSTEAD YOU REITERATE YOUR OVERALL UNDERSTANDING. When responding to me – PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS – no speeches!

Edj

Wen you talk to me please say SIR ,

[Ed J]

Quote (terraricca @ April 03 2013,05:51)

Quote (Ed J @ April 03 2013,00:21) Quote (terraricca @ April 03 2013,02:25) Quote (Ed J @ April 02 2013,20:21) Hi Pierre, So “GOD” saying there are no other Gods is wrong then? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Edj What is it you did not understand from my quote Your quote seems to be ignoring the verse. I'm asking you (I mean Mike) to explain the verse – INSTEAD YOU REITERATE YOUR OVERALL UNDERSTANDING. When responding to me – PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS – no speeches! Edj Wen you talk to me please say SIR ,

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ April 02 2013,12:21)

I'm asking you (I mean Mike) to explain the verse –

I've explained it to you so many times I've lost count, Ed.  I even dedicated an entire thread to this subject – just for you.  But you soon bailed on that thread, didn't you?

Let's refresh:

Jehovah clearly said that besides Him, there were no ELOHIM, didn't He?

Yet, ARE there other elohim, according to scriptures?  YES or NO?

Paul clearly said that for us, there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Yet, Jehovah is also our Lord, isn't He?  And Paul also taught us to obey our earthly lords as we would obey Jesus, right?

And Jesus said no one is good but God alone, right?  

Yet he called HIMSELF “the good shepherd”, didn't he?

Jehovah is, according to scripture, the “elohim of elohim”, right?  Who are these elohim that Jehovah is the elohim OF, if Jehovah is literally the ONLY elohim?

And why does Jehovah Himself call Satan the “god of Ekron”?  And how did Jehovah punish all the “gods of Egypt” along with the people of Egypt?

And how is Jehovah the “Most High God” – if there are no lesser gods with which to compare Him?

Is it all starting to come back to you, Ed?  Or should you revisit the “Indeed there are many gods” thread again?

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ April 02 2013,05:17)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 02 2013,18:40) In this one verse, the LORD calls Israel a 'them' and a 'him.' Hosea 14:4I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him. You have a problem with the way God words things, t8? First you have failed 'article theology' from John 1:1. Now you have failed 'pronoun theology.' You don't think a 'him' can be a 'them/they.' Your problem is with scripture, not with me. Back to the point Kathi. Call God “them”, otherwise where is your confidence in your own teaching. It's called “Eating your own dog food” in the software industry. BTW, the example you gave is weak. It appears that more translations use the words 'from them' and older Bibles like the KJV use 'from him'. Might have something to do with the Textus Receptus. Haven't got time to check. Also, if you follow this link, you will see that 'from him' is not underlined. Why is that, I do not know. Perhaps it denotes that it is not part of the text. Perhaps added in, I don't know. http://bible.worthwhile.com/bible.p….=14&w=4 Regardless, I would like to see you at least be straight up about what you teach and publicly (on Heaven Net) call God  “them” instead of “him”. That way at least you are consistent like us because we call God “Him” “Whom”, etc. And then our views are distinguished and our teachings are supported by our everyday language too. I say this because I think that you are trying to sound like us, because deep down you know that God is a “Him” in scripture. But you should speak the same as you teach. That is what I think. It is called being upfront and honest.

T8,
I sometimes do say 'they' as in 'they are one' and sometimes I say Him if speaking specifically about the unity or the individual person.

I have given you the example of Hosea 14:4 and will give you the larger context to show you that Israel which is a plural unity, is referred to with singular and plural pronouns, specifically:
Singular pronouns
your
thou
thy
thine
he
him
his
Plural pronouns
them
their
we
our
us

Hosea 14 KJV
1O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity.

2Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

3Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy.

A Promise of God's Blessing

4I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him.

5I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon.

6His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon.

A 'him' can be a 'them' as well as you see here. So, now you can't say that a unity can't be both a he and a they, a him and a them.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ April 02 2013,05:21)

Kathi you are getting all confused over what the Logos was before it was with God. The early fathers taught much on this subject and basically said that the Word Power that was in God was brought forth as the first work. It is quite something else to say that the Word Power in God was a different mind to God, even though it was in him (his mind). I can imagine all kinds of things, but until I actually create it or bring it forth it is just an idea or an attribute.

Can 'power' or an attribute participate in its own bringing forth? A person can.

Also, for something/someone to participate in their own bringing forth from another, they have to exist already.

You have admitted that the Word was eternally existent in the Father but you say as an attribute; I say, as a Son.

Again, an attribute does not participate in its own bringing forth.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2013,23:30)

In other words, Tatian doe not agree with your theology that the Logos was a creation.

Let's see, using the Tatian words YOU just posted:

For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (ὑπόστασις) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone;

The Lord was ALONE in the beginning, for there was, as of yet, no CREATURE in existence.

He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things;

In Tatian's understanding, all the things to come were already “with” God, although God was literally “alone” – as he just pointed out.  This “all things” would most undoubtedly include “the Word”, right?

and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father.

What does it mean that the Logos “came forth”, and was “the first begotten WORK of the Father”?

Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being

Oh, THAT'S what it means – that the Logos was the beginning of all creation (the world), and that he “came into being”.

Hmmm………. does someone who already IS a being “come into being”, Kathi?

And as the Logos, begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world,

What does he mean by “begat” our world?  Wasn't our world CREATED, Kathi?  Hmmmm…………  It seems our world was “begotten” JUST LIKE the Logos was “begotten”.  But surely “begotten” and “created” are two completely different things, right?  At least that's what YOU keep telling me, right?

having first created for Himself the necessary matter,

So matter was CREATED, huh?

For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.

So matter, which we learned before is CREATED, is not “without beginning”, but instead is “BEGOTTEN” and “BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE”.

Hmmmm…………  Some of this stuff sounds EXACTLY like the stuff I've been telling you for years.

Now, like I told you in the other post, Tatian's words have no more claim to being “scripture” than Athanasius' words.  And I don't agree with him that the Logos “subsisted” before “coming into being”.  In fact, those two claims directly contradict each other.  One who already exists does not “come into being”, as far as I know.

Nor do I agree with him that it was the Logos who created the matter with which he subsequently created all other things.  There are many scriptures that speak of God creating all things through the Logos – but no scripture that says the Logos himself created anything at all.

But at any rate, Kathi, I hope you are able to see the planks I pointed out for you. I can only assume you've seen them, because as of yet you haven't addressed them.

peace,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 02 2013,20:47)

Also, for something/someone to participate in their own bringing forth from another, they have to exist already.

Kathi,

Which SCRIPTURE says that the Logos participated in his own bringing forth?

[Author]

Posts