Origen's understanding of John 1:1

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2013,15:13)

I have been saying the same thing in different words, t8 but you laugh. The fact is that there is more than one Root of Jesse. Why would you think that the other Root would not be the Father since He made all through another Root? Or who do you think the other root/s is/are?

Well if this is your argument whether it is right or wrong, it supports our view not yours.

Let's look at this scripture again:

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

Okay. Now apply your understanding.

2 roots. Okay.

God > Christ > Creation/Man

There you go. This satisfies all your requirements while also not going against the above scripture.

As you can see, man was created by God through Christ. The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.

So the root of the woman is the man, the root of the man is Christ, the root of Christ is God. This also means that the root of the woman is the man, Christ, and God. The root of the man is Christ and God. And the root of Christ is exclusively God.

Thanks for the support Kathi. Okay this root, shoot, and foot argument can be archived. Whether right or wrong, it makes no difference to this topic, meaning it is its own topic and not related to this.

Next →

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2013,13:16)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2013,06:42) (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. Mike and all, Words are sand and not bedrock.

But Kerwin,

You cannot deny that this man, Origen, was well schooled in the Koine Greek language in which the NT was written, right?

And he understands John to have been writing about TWO different gods in 1:1 – one of whom was with the other, right?

He understands “the logos” to be Jesus, who was a different theos who was with “THE theos” in the beginning, right?

How do you suppose he came to such an idea?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2013,18:32)

Mike, LU, and all; Who or what is “the stump of Jesse”?

I think “stump”, in this case, conveys the same idea as “roots”.

The forthcoming “Branch” will come from the stump of Jesse, (in other words), from his roots.

Both statements, IMO, are saying that this Branch will come from the family line that also bore Jesse himself.

[2besee]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 05 2013,13:44)

Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2013,13:16) mikeboll64,April wrote: Mike and all, Words are sand and not bedrock.   But Kerwin, You cannot deny that this man, Origen, was well schooled in the Koine Greek language in which the NT was written, right? And he understands John to have been writing about TWO different gods in 1:1 – one of whom was with the other, right? He understands “the logos” to be Jesus, who was a different theos who was with “THE theos” in the beginning, right? How do you suppose he came to such an idea?

Just some information for you to consider – See the bolded print below..

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Origen_in_the_1970s

“Origen and a form of apocatastasis were condemned at the Synod of Constantinople (543) by the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople and the condemnation was ratified in 553 by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Many heteroclite views became associated with Origen, and the 15 anathemas attributed to the council condemn a form of apocatastasis along with the pre-existence of the soul, animism (a heterodox Christology), and a denial of real and lasting resurrection of the body. Some authorities believe these anathemas belong to an earlier local synod.[60] The anathema against him in his person, declaring him (among others) a heretic, reads as follows:

   If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.

As a result of this condemnation, the writings of Origen supporting his teachings in these areas were destroyed. They were either outright destroyed, or they were translated with the appropriate adjustments to eliminate conflict with orthodox Christian doctrine. Therefore, little direct evidence remains to fully confirm or disprove Origen’s support of the nine points of anathema against him”

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 05 2013,06:44)

Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2013,13:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2013,06:42) (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. Mike and all, Words are sand and not bedrock.   But Kerwin, You cannot deny that this man, Origen, was well schooled in the Koine Greek language in which the NT was written, right? And he understands John to have been writing about TWO different gods in 1:1 – one of whom was with the other, right? He understands “the logos” to be Jesus, who was a different theos who was with “THE theos” in the beginning, right? How do you suppose he came to such an idea?

Mike,

It was still a living language when he wrote and he may have wrote in it. Miscommunications in human languages are common due to their flexibility.

According to some Oregen held Jesus was a subject person within the Godhead and that all human souls are preexistant. He also believed by some to have held there was a possibility of universal salvation, even of Satan.

[mikeboll64]

Yes Kerwin and 2B, I read the Wiki page on him.

But I'm asking only about his writing about John 1:1 – the reason for this very thread, remember?  

I'm asking you both to take note that a very learned scholar of scripture, who read and wrote in the same language in which the scriptures were written, came to the conclusion that “the Word” was indeed Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ was “a god” who was with “THE god” in the beginning.

I want you to know that it is not just some far-fetched fantasy I have when I understand the same exact thing.  I have never read anything about Origen before taking t8's quote of him, and starting this thread with it.  

But I do find it refreshing that a man who lived close to the time the NT was written, and who spoke the same exact language, came to the same conclusion of John 1:1 that I did.

Any man can make a mistake about anything – including his interpretation of scripture.  But Origen's writing underscores the honest scriptural possibility that the Word was a god who was with THE god in the beginning.

After all, Jesus, Satan, and angels of God were definitely called gods in scripture.  And when the angels came to present themselves before Jehovah in Job 1:6 and 2:1, it was literally a matter of a bunch of gods being with THE god………. in Biblical language.

I just don't want you guys to miss out on this important truth of scripture simply because your 21st century minds cannot fathom the thought of gods being with THE god.

This concept was obviously not only possible to Origen, but he was so sure it was what John meant in 1:1 that he wrote a letter supporting this understanding.  And this man knew the language better than any of us ever will.

I know 2B is one of the ones Origen wrote about when he said, “They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.”.

I know this because many times in the “Beginning” thread, he has directly told me that a god being with God just doesn't make sense to him.  (As if God Almighty being with Himself does make sense.   )

Anyway, I just wanted you guys to take particular note of this part of Origen's writing about John 1:1.

I wanted you to be open at least to the possibility that John was writing about one god who was with THE god.

peace,
mike

[2besee]

Hi Mike,

The FACT that Origens writings regarding John 1:1 could have been tampered with as His writings, as Wikipedia says, definitely were tampered with,  means “Why would you trust them?”

In the beginning was the utterance, the utterance was with God and divine was the utterance.

A possibility which makes sense?

You know that as John 1 continues on — “HE” could be “THIS” or “IT”.
http://biblos.com/john/1-2.htm

And we know that “In the Beginning”, God created the Heavens and the Earth through His Spirit and His spoken Word (“God said………….” – Genesis 1).

[terraricca]

Quote (2besee @ April 06 2013,06:18)

Hi Mike, The FACT that Origens writings regarding John 1:1 could have been tampered with as His writings, as Wikipedia says, definitely were tampered with,  means “Why would you trust them?” In the beginning was the utterance, the utterance was with God and divine was the utterance. A possibility which makes sense? You know that as John 1 continues on — “HE” could be “THIS” or “IT”. http://biblos.com/john/1-2.htm And we know that “In the Beginning”, God created the Heavens and the Earth through His Spirit and His spoken Word (“God said………….” – Genesis 1).

2bee

why do you only consider John 1 ;1 but add to it what Paul said in Coloss;1;15-21 then now what effort are you taking by combine those true scriptures ;

and one more thing to consider is,it is not what others believe or have written ,BUT WHAT YOU IN YOUR HEART BELIEVE FROM SCRIPTURES ,NOT FROM WRITTEN TEXT FROM ANYONE ELSE ;

UNLESS YOU HAVE AGREED WITH WHAT THEY TEACH ,THEN YOU BEAR THEIR TRUTH OR GUILT ;

[kerwin]

T and all,

The word was with the divine, The word was divine.

The word was with the god, the word was god.

The word was with the bible, the word was bible.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2013,04:54)

T and all, The word was with the divine, The word was divine. The word was with the god, the word was god. The word was with the bible, the word was bible.

k

AGAIN YOU REDUCE YOUR VIEW TO A VAGUE CLOSE UP,

you would be right if the bible start at Christ coming ,and that Paul never said this ;
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

YOU SEE “ALL THINGS” IN VERSE 17 IT SAYS “” HE WAS BEFORE ” THIS MEAN WHAT BEFORE MEANS NOT AFTER RIGHT ,SO YOU ARGUMENT DOES NOT STAND

[2besee]

All things were made through God's word.
God's word is God's own spoken word, through His own mouth.
So what was the world ALSO made through?
God's own spirit.  

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.”

“All things have been entrusted to me by my Father. No one fully knows the Son except the Father, and no one fully knows the Father except the Son and the person to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

“The Father loves the Son and shows him everything he is doing, and he will show him even greater actions than these, so that you may be amazed.

“Is there anyone who can understand his own thoughts except his own inner spirit? In the same way, no one can know the thoughts of God except God's Spirit.“

But the comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything that I have told you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ April 07 2013,05:34)

Quote (kerwin @ April 07 2013,04:54) T and all, The word was with the divine, The word was divine. The word was with the god, the word was god. The word was with the bible, the word was bible. k AGAIN YOU REDUCE YOUR VIEW TO A VAGUE CLOSE UP, you would be right if the bible start at Christ coming ,and that Paul never said this ; Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. YOU SEE “ALL THINGS” IN VERSE 17 IT SAYS “” HE WAS BEFORE ” THIS MEAN WHAT BEFORE MEANS NOT AFTER RIGHT ,SO YOU ARGUMENT DOES NOT STAND

T and all,

I tried two versions of a literal word for word translation of a part of John 1:1 and then applied the same pastern to the bible.

I have read the event of creation and it declares all things were created by the utterance of the god(s). It also states the new creation was created through Jesus. Those are planks.

Your interpretation of Colossians 1:16-17 is a spec.

To return to John 1:1 where does the “a” come in. There is no explicit “a” in the ancient Greek. Adding an “a” shifts the meaning in the three sentences I used.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ April 05 2013,18:18)

Hi Mike, The FACT that Origens writings regarding John 1:1 could have been tampered with as His writings, as Wikipedia says, definitely were tampered with,  means “Why would you trust them?”

So?  This thread has less to do with what Origen wrote than it has to do with the SCRIPTURAL POSSIBILITIES of what he claimed.

So whether it was actually Origen who wrote the words I've colored green, or the person who “tampered with” Origen's writings, the SCRIPTURAL POSSIBILITIES of what was written remains the same.

I want you to be open to that possibility, 2B.  Do you agree with me that, in scriptural language, Job 1:6 described a bunch of lesser gods who came to present themselves before the Most High God?  (If you cannot see this, then you need to get your head out of the 21st century understanding of the word “god”, and into the Biblical understanding of “elohim” and “theos”.)

Quote (2besee @ April 05 2013,18:18)

In the beginning was the utterance, the utterance was with God and divine was the utterance.

Well, first you should note that your translation does NOT equate the the “utterance” with the person of God, but instead calls the utterance “divine”, and not “God”.

So in that matter, your translation actually agrees with me that the logos was not God Himself, but someone/something OTHER THAN “God Himself”.  IE:  “God Himself” was NOT with “God Himself” in the beginning – just like I've been telling you all along.

Secondly, consider how your translation personifies this “utterance” – as if it were a “person”.  It says the utterance WAS, and the utterance was with God, and the utterance was divine.

So even in your translation, we have a PERSON being with God in the beginning, and that PERSON was NOT “God Himself”.  Do you see how your translation and I AGREE about these things?

So it seems to me that the only difference between my understanding and yours is that I believe Jesus was the “personified utterance”, and you don't.  You believe God's literal “utterances” can sensibly be said to have “existed” in the beginning, and to have been “with” God, and were themselves “divine”.

How you get from that to the conclusion that these “utterances” were God's “Holy Spirit Son” I'll never know.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 06 2013,16:54)

T and all, The word was with the divine, The word was divine. The word was with the god, the word was god.

Kerwin,

I'm glad you have finally come to realize that the word was not literally the very God it was with. That is a step in the right direction.

But you can forget about “the word was divine” :

The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.” – Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

[mikeboll64]

Quote (terraricca @ April 06 2013,17:34)

you would be right if the bible start at Christ coming ,and that Paul never said this………

Pierre,

You are correct that these guys seem to think John 1 is the ONLY scripture that speaks of Jesus' pre-existence.  Can they twist ALL of these scriptures?

[Proclaimer]

Interesting note Mike that when Jesus said of Judas, “one of you is a devil” (one of you is diablos), that as Kathi points out that too is an adjective, but is said to be almost invariably used in the New Testament as a noun.

This happens in English too. The word “Mod” was a noun once, and is now mainly an adjective.

And so when Jesus was talking about Judas, I don't think he was saying that Judas was a devil as in a literal devil, even though it is used as a noun, but that he was talking more about the nature of Judas being like that of a devil.

This is also possible with John 1:1c because even though it is a noun (theos), it may not be saying a literal God, but rather how Strongs puts it:

whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
God's representative or viceregent
of magistrates and judges

[Proclaimer]

Further, I agree with you that John 1:1c can be correctly translated as “the Word was a god”, just as Jesus said, “one of you is a devil”, but I think the reader needs to read them both as referring to nature or in quality, rather than literal.

In that sense both could be translated as saying the Word was one who is divine or Judas was one who was diabolical or Judas was one who was devil-like.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 06 2013,18:52)

To return to John 1:1 where does the “a” come in.  There is no explicit “a” in the ancient Greek.  Adding an “a” shifts the meaning in the three sentences I used.

Kerwin,

Here are your sentences again:

1.  The word was with the divine, The word was divine.

2.  The word was with the god, the word was god.

3.  The word was with the bible, the word was bible.

#1 is fine, because the first use of “divine” implies “the divine ONE“, or “the divine BEING“, right?  And the second use of “divine” in that first example is fine, because that word is an adjective which describes a noun, right?  But it doesn't work with John 1:1, because the second “theos” was NOT written as an adjective.  Instead, it is a noun.  (See my recent post)

The words “god” and “bible” in examples #2 and #3 will only work if “god-KIND” and “bible-KIND” are meant.

For example, “Cain was with THE Man (Adam), and Cain was man.”  See how the second use of “man” really means “manKIND”?  And if Cain was “man” (meaning “of mankind”), then it can EQUALLY be said of him, “Cain was A man”, right?

So in your latter two examples, the words “god” and “bible” could EQUALLY be stated as “a god”, and “a bible”, right?

IE:  2.  The word was with the god, the word was godKIND, and therefore “A god”.

3.  The word was with the bible, the word was bibleKIND, and therefore “A bible”.

Understand?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ April 06 2013,19:51)

Interesting note Mike that when Jesus said of Judas, “one of you is a devil” (one of you is diablos), that as Kathi points out that too is an adjective, but is said to be almost invariably used in the New Testament as a noun.

I did some checking, and “diablos” in John 6:70 is for sure an adjective.  BUT………. I then compared “diablos” in Matthew 4:1 and 4:5, where it is used as “THE devil”, and they are both also ADJECTIVES – not NOUNS.    Interesting indeed.  Your point has been confirmed as rational, my friend.  

Quote (t8 @ April 06 2013,19:51)

whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way God's representative or viceregent of magistrates and judges

The DEFINITION could include “theios” – which is the ADJECTIVAL form of “theos”, and would therefore be correct.

But notice how the examples for that definition are not adjectives – but instead nouns.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2013,16:12)

I did some checking, and “diablos” in John 6:70 is for sure an adjective. BUT………. I then compared “diablos” in Matthew 4:1 and 4:5, where it is used as “THE devil”, and they are both also ADJECTIVES – not NOUNS. Interesting indeed. Your point has been confirmed as rational, my friend.

I wish more people were humble enough to accept something that was true just like you did. Bless you for that.

[Author]

Posts