Origen's understanding of John 1:1

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,07:57)

T8 and all, Adam was THE Adam is right. Adam was adam is right.

Okay Kerwin,

In the beginning was Cain.  And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam.

Is this also correct?

ABE, this question is also for you.

[mikeboll64]

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.

Does everyone here agree that John, being led by Spirit, wrote 1:1 exactly the way he meant to write it?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,03:57)

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.

Adam was THE Adam is right.
Adam was adam is right.

Correct.

One is talking about nature and the other identity.

Thus the Word is not identified as God that is the point.
This truth is little understood.

[kerwin]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 17 2013,09:31)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,03:57) 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. Adam was THE Adam is right. Adam was adam is right. Correct. One is talking about nature and the other identity. Thus the Word is not identified as God that is the point. This truth is little understood.

T8,

If ancient Greek were English then the same rule what you state would sound reasonable. As it is I do not know enough.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2013,07:04)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,07:57) T8 and all, Adam was THE Adam is right. Adam was adam is right. Okay Kerwin, In the beginning was Cain.  And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam. Is this also correct? ABE, this question is also for you.

Mike,

That is a true English statement.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,00:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2013,07:04) In the beginning was Cain.  And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam. Mike, That is a true English statement.

And if Cain was “adam”, which means “qualitatively adam”, it could also be said of him that he was AN adam, right?

After all, if one is qualitatively “man”, he is therefore A man, right?

[Proclaimer]

God is a god, but so are others.
He is the Most High God, but no other is the Most High God.

He is the only true God. It means that he is the only one who is God over all.
I doesn't mean that angels or God's council are false gods.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,20:04)

T8, If ancient Greek were English then the same rule what you state would sound reasonable.  As it is I do not know enough.

I have said this too many times to count, but in case you have never heard me say it, I will say it now.

Jesus said “one of you is a devil”. He was referring to Judas Iscariot. What Jesus meant was that one of you have the nature or character of the Devil. He didn't mean that he was calling Judas, Satan himself. There is no definite article, so that is how it is understood.

Now had Jesus said, “One of you is THE Devil”, then he would have been saying that one was Satan himself. Because in this case he would have been identifying the devil. That is what the definite article does in Greek.

We understand this even in English.

“The man made weapons to hunt.”
“Man made weapons to hunt.”

See how the first one is singling out a particular person. It is identifying a specific person, whereas the second example is a statement about mankind which is a word that describes the collective audience who share in a particular nature.

So when it says, “the Word was theos”, it is not saying that the Word Was THE Theos. It can be read as saying something like, “The Word was divine”, which some translations actually do. It is describing the nature and quality of God. i.e., the Word possessed the nature of God.

[vjesnik]

I see John 1:1 exactly the way he meant to write it.
There is the God  (only true God) and God (the Son of God)

We can find confirmation to this further in the text, although we have to look into Greek and not rely
on trinitarian translations, but rather on the originals.

<>
King James Version
15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
(1096. ginomai: to come into being, to happen, to become. It is the same word used in John 1:3, to describe that world come into being through Yeshua).

<>
King James Version
30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
(the same as above)

John is not talking about his earthly birth because Jesus was born after him.
These texts fit perfectly with Colossians 1:15

15Who (Yeshua) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(Greek: [the] firstborn of all creation)

Now the question is, why is come into being translated as preferred or appointed?
To me it is very clear why.

Further to this there is punctuation problem in John 1:3-4.
Although there were not many punctuation in the Greek originals, many early texts with punctuations have it in different place than we have it in our bibles today.
Today we have punctuation in verse 3 after “ ὃ γέγονεν ”(which has come into being), although in the Greek this structure doesn’t make sense.
So why, the punctuation is not in the place where it is in the early texts, and where it will make sense in the Greek?
This is how we have it now:
All things came into being through him, and apart from him, not one thing came into being which has come into being.  In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

And this is how the text may read, with the punctuation in the right place:
All things came into being through him, and apart from him, not one thing came into being.
Who come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of men.

This is in the agreement with scriptures above and many other scriptures.

Now, the question is do we have a right to freely translate and/or change things in the bible for the sake of the doctrine? What Jesus said about this?

Believing that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, that he come into being, doesn’t make Him smaller, neither it takes away anything from what God has done through Him, or from what Jesus has done for us. He is still my Lord and saviour, The Son of God.
God bless

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2013,13:29)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,00:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2013,07:04) In the beginning was Cain.  And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam. Mike, That is a true English statement. And if Cain was “adam”, which means “qualitatively adam”, it could also be said of him that he was AN adam, right? After all, if one is qualitatively “man”, he is therefore A man, right?

Mike,

I have previously agreed that according to my knowledge of Ancient Greek it is possible. Being possible does not make it so. As it sits “god” can be speaking of anyone or anything that falls into the class god in any way. The same with “adam”.

[kerwin]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 17 2013,15:57)

God is a god, but so are others. He is the Most High God, but no other is the Most High God. He is the only true God. It means that he is the only one who is God over all. I doesn't mean that angels or God's council are false gods.

T8,

Quote

Jesus said “one of you is a devil”. He was referring to Judas Iscariot. What Jesus meant was that one of you have the nature or character of the Devil.

The angels are gods since they have the character and nature of Jehovah. Is Judas a false devil?

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,20:35)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 17 2013,15:57) God is a god, but so are others. He is the Most High God, but no other is the Most High God. He is the only true God. It means that he is the only one who is God over all. I doesn't mean that angels or God's council are false gods. T8, Quote Jesus said “one of you is a devil”. He was referring to Judas Iscariot. What Jesus meant was that one of you have the nature or character of the Devil. The angels are gods since they have the character and nature of Jehovah. Is Judas a false devil?

Kerwin

at what distance do you think that you could see the elephant

2 feet from him ??,5 feet from him ?? 10 feet from him or 30-50 feet from him

if you chose the 30/50 distance would you then say that the ones that see him (the elephant )did not see an elephant
of cause this would be wrong because they see the elephant but not the whole elephant only what is allowed to see from that distance ,right yes

so from this image ,wisdom tells me that to see things in their proper configuration ,you should be also at the right distance (have enough knowledge on the subject) so to have the over all view of the subject to see,

would not agree to this

[abe]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 16 2013,17:04)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,07:57) T8 and all, Adam was THE Adam is right. Adam was adam is right. Okay Kerwin, In the beginning was Cain.  And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam. Is this also correct? ABE, this question is also for you.

Hi Mike,

Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created

Jn.1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Before God created the word, what is the word?

Peace brother.

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 17 2013,22:54)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,20:35) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 17 2013,15:57) God is a god, but so are others. He is the Most High God, but no other is the Most High God. He is the only true God. It means that he is the only one who is God over all. I doesn't mean that angels or God's council are false gods. T8, Quote Jesus said “one of you is a devil”. He was referring to Judas Iscariot. What Jesus meant was that one of you have the nature or character of the Devil. The angels are gods since they have the character and nature of Jehovah. Is Judas a false devil? Kerwin at what distance do you think that you could see the elephant 2 feet from him ??,5 feet from him ?? 10 feet from him or 30-50 feet from him if you chose the 30/50 distance would you then say that the ones that see him (the elephant )did not see an elephant of cause this would be wrong because they see the elephant but not the whole elephant only what is allowed to see from that distance ,right yes so from this image ,wisdom tells me that to see things in their proper configuration ,you should be also at the right distance (have enough knowledge on the subject) so to have the over all view of the subject to see, would not agree to this

T,

You do need the right point of view.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 18 2013,04:35)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 17 2013,15:57) God is a god, but so are others. He is the Most High God, but no other is the Most High God. He is the only true God. It means that he is the only one who is God over all. I doesn't mean that angels or God's council are false gods. T8, Quote Jesus said “one of you is a devil”. He was referring to Judas Iscariot. What Jesus meant was that one of you have the nature or character of the Devil. The angels are gods since they have the character and nature of Jehovah. Is Judas a false devil?

No, I don't think he was false. He supposedly had the nature or character of one according to Christ. so that makes him truly as a devil.

It appears that spirituality takes precedent over physical.
Thus if you have the character of evil, you can be called a devil.

Likewise if we have the character of God, then we are children of God, even though we currently have flesh bodies.

[Proclaimer]

Further we might call someone an angel if they are very good, or a devil if they are bad.
This is not used to say that someone is a false angel or a false good person.

See that?

[kerwin]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 18 2013,01:59)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 18 2013,04:35) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 17 2013,15:57) God is a god, but so are others. He is the Most High God, but no other is the Most High God. He is the only true God. It means that he is the only one who is God over all. I doesn't mean that angels or God's council are false gods. T8, Quote Jesus said “one of you is a devil”. He was referring to Judas Iscariot. What Jesus meant was that one of you have the nature or character of the Devil. The angels are gods since they have the character and nature of Jehovah. Is Judas a false devil? No, I don't think he was false. He supposedly had the nature or character of one according to Christ. so that makes him truly as a devil. It appears that spirituality takes precedent over physical. Thus if you have the character of evil, you can be called a devil. Likewise if we have the character of God, then we are children of God, even though we currently have flesh bodies.

T8,

Sound correct.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (vjesnik @ Mar. 17 2013,05:58)

I see John 1:1 exactly the way he meant to write it. There is the God  (only true God) and God (the Son of God)

I agree that John 1:1 speaks about Jesus, who as God's spokesman is called “the Word”. And I agree that Jesus was with “THE god” in the beginning. But are you saying that Jesus is also “THE god” he was with? Or was he a DIFFERENT god who was with “THE god” in the beginning?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,08:30)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2013,13:29) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,00:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2013,07:04) In the beginning was Cain.  And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam. Mike, That is a true English statement. And if Cain was “adam”, which means “qualitatively adam”, it could also be said of him that he was AN adam, right? After all, if one is qualitatively “man”, he is therefore A man, right? Mike, I have previously agreed that according to my knowledge of Ancient Greek it is possible.  Being possible does not make it so.

Okay.  So you're saying that it IS possible that John 1:1 speaks of “a god” who was with “THE god” in the beginning?  Fantastic!

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 17 2013,08:30)

As it sits “god” can be speaking of anyone or anything that falls into the class god in any way.

What exactly would fall into the class “god”, in your opinion?  Is God's Holy Spirit a god?  Are the spoken words of God “gods”?

Or does it seem much more likely that a BEING, who was also in the “god class”, was with “THE god” in the beginning?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (abe @ Mar. 17 2013,11:05)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 16 2013,17:04) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2013,07:57) T8 and all, Adam was THE Adam is right. Adam was adam is right. Okay Kerwin, In the beginning was Cain.  And Cain was with THE adam, and Cain was adam. Is this also correct? ABE, this question is also for you. Hi Mike, Gen.1:1  In the beginning God created Jn.1:1   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Before God created the word, what is the word? Peace brother.

Abe,

I believe I have a question awaiting an answer from you. AFTER you answer MY question, I'll happily answer yours.

peace,
mike

[Author]

Posts