The Son of God

[Proclaimer]

Quote

Why does John 1 have to be The Word and not the word. The word was spoken and it became flesh in the past (not human but a creature), God breathed and that breath “became” a living creature in the past – God's word is an active, creative force – the word of God created the heavens in Psalm 33:6, the stary hosts by the breath (same word as spirit) of his Mouth. So then why not the “word was God” in John 1. If God's word acts, divides, sharpens, lives, is active, instructs, strenghtens, heals… then why can that word not be with Him and is Him… his word does not return void… so it is who He is… it was the what God spoke that brought into being plants, fish, heavenly bodies, etc. why then can it not be said, the word “became” flesh… it did in the past why not in John 1… it created the world in the past Psalm 33:6 why not John 1?

First off there is an article before the word LOGOS, which is used to denote a person. Secondly Jesus is called the LOGOS OF GOD in the Book of Revelation. Are we to suppose that he is now just a spoken word of God? Or is he still a person?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,13:48)

En arxh hn (5713) o logov, kai o logov hn (5713) prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn (5713) o logov. Why do we translate it “and the Word was God”, should it not be “and God was the Word”…

Hi Artizan007, its difficult to answer this without using technical jargon, so I apologise in advance…..

Literal transliteration of John 1:1
John 1:1a. “In beginning was the word…”
               (en arche en ho logos)

John 1:1b. “and the word was with the God…”
               (kai ho logos en pros ton theon)

John 1:1c. “and God was the word”
               (kai theos en ho logos)

John 1:1c is, however, properly rendered: “the Word was God.” because because of the construction used. There is a predicate nominative (Theos) in which the noun precedes the verb. A predicate nominative has an equating verb (an equating verb links the subject with the complement of a sentence) joining two “nominative” case nouns (i.e. they're both the “subject.”). Colwell’s Rules states that a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb and lacks the article when it precedes it. Since there is only one definite article (“ho”=”the”) in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative (“subject”) form (“theos” and “logos”), the noun with the definite article (“ho”=”the”) IS the subject.  In this case “ho logos” means that “the word” is the subject of the clause.

Hope this helps
Blessings

[Artizan007]

Get real 😉 hehe, I like it Nick, sounds like a coca cola ad…

You Quote:
His first move was to beget a son [in the beginning] who does everything in the name of the Father. – Where Nick, you tell me where does it state this… where was he begotten [in the beginning]? One Scripture is all I need.

Nick I am not fighting I am digging and will continue to do so – I want to know what you believe so I can learn and grow, so spill the beans… if what you believe is convincing enough I will look at it… but I can't see one scripture that says Jesus or the Word was begotten of God in the distant past as a son… so where are you getting this idea from… eternal sonship is simply not there.

Is this speaking of a pre-existing being?

Read Psalm 22:9-10
For You are He that drew Me out of the womb; My hope from My mother's breasts.
I was cast on You from the womb; You are My God {from My mother's belly}.

Taken from the Psalm of the Messiah
1 – Jesus used the first verse 'Oh God, My God why have you forsaken me'… when on the cross,
2 many other verses contianed in the Psalm applied to his experience on the cross and what happened that day
3 and the end verse, 'That He has done this'… “it is finished” seems to fit well…
4 the verses above seem to say God was his God from the Womb not eternity… well that is my take anyway.

Is this speaking of a pre-existing being?

Read Isaiah 49: 1-8 (especially v5) … he was formed in the Womb, where God made mention of the Messiah's name. Which was what? Luke and Matthew… say it would be: “Jesus” according to Gabriel – and he will be called [Son of the Highest] on his being brought forth through Mary (Luke 1:32) The holy one that is born of you will be called the SON of GOD (v35)… when… um hold on… when was he called “the Son of God”… well when he was born not before his birth – there is no pre-existent thought here, not even a hint.

Something I have just noticed that I have never seen before – well not in this light:

When it says “nothing is impossible with God” in (v37)…
1. It comes after the Angel telling Mary of John's conception in Elisabeth and not that of Jesus' conception within Mary… as I have always thought. I thought this was spoken of Mary, but it is actually spoken of Elisabeth…
2. It states Now INDEED, Elisabeth was barren, but that in her barreness and old age she had conceived…
3. then the angel says “nothing is impossible with God”…
4. and after Mary heard I guess it gave her faith to believe and she simply accepted saying to the angel Let it be according to your word.

To me it seems to be like it was revealed for Mary to believe that what had been promised would happen…

God opened Elisabeth's womb like he did Sarah's, Rebekah's and Rachel's – impossible becomes possible when God's plan is set in motion, nothing gets in the way – interesting sideline…

[Artizan007]

Thanks T8

Some interesting scriptures to think about… will look at those later…

[Artizan007]

Quote (t8 @ May 17 2006,06:54)

First off there is an article before the word LOGOS, which is used to denote a person. Secondly Jesus is called the LOGOS OF GOD in the Book of Revelation. Are we to suppose that he is now just a spoken word of God? Or is he still a person?

Explain this please…

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
Oux oion de oti ekpeptwken (5758) [o logov] tou qeou. ou gar pantev oi ec Israhl, outoi Israhl;

and

Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
h af' umwn [o logov] tou qeou echlqen, h eiv umav monouv kathnthsen? (5656)

Here is the article HO before the Word LOGOS and Logos is the Subject… why is it not the Word of GOD here… as in Revelation and John.

Now I don't know Greek and am just starting out but as far as I can see these would be an exception to your rule state above because the article comes before the LOGOS… so any help to understand will be beneficial

You said:
Are we to suppose that He is now just a spoken word of God? Or is he still a person? He is not the spoken – he is LOGOS the divine expression of God… Animals are not the spoken word of God, but He spoke and they were…

Ummm I guess I see it as – Jesus is a person for sure – He is the Son of God, that denotes a person does it not? He is the revealing of the word of promise that GOD had spoken throughout the OT and was manifest in our times… conceived in Mary by the power of the Highest, Jesus the Christ, God's Chosen Messiah…

Speak soon

[Artizan007]

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

This is an interesting one… will look at that! Thanks

Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

That is not talking about Jesus… but of the Father who deserves glory, majesty, power and authority before all ages, now and forever more…

NAS Version
to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

monw qew swthri hmwn dia Ihsou Xristou tou kuriou hmwn doca megalwsunh kratov kai ecousia pro pantov tou aiwnov kai nun kai eiv pantav touv aiwnav; amhn.

[Artizan007]

Thanks Is 1:18

Not easy stuff is it… 😉

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 18 2006,03:19)

That is not talking about Jesus… but of the Father who deserves glory, majesty, power and authority before all ages, now and forever more…

Fair enough, could well be.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 17 2006,06:01)

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,12:50) Back to the topic I digressed – sorry: Why does John 1 have to be The Word and not the word. The word was spoken and it became flesh in the past (not human but a creature), God breathed and that breath “became” a living creature in the past – God's word is an active, creative force – the word of God created the heavens in Psalm 33:6, the stary hosts by the breath (same word as spirit) of his Mouth. So then why not the “word was God” in John 1. If God's word acts, divides, sharpens, lives, is active, instructs, strenghtens, heals… then why can that word not be with Him and is Him… his word does not return void… so it is who He is…  it was the what God spoke that brought into being plants, fish, heavenly bodies, etc. why then can it not be said, the word “became” flesh… it did in the past why not in John 1… it created the world in the past Psalm 33:6 why not John 1? Hi A.7, And it is also true that to live spiritually we must feed on the Word of God. We must abide in the Word. “Man cannot live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” Jesus stunned his audience and lost a considerable number of his disciples when he stated this about himself in Jn 6. “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life in you” Catholics thought they had grasped the meaning of this when they applied it to the bread and wine of communion and thus they teach that salvation is by regular mass attendance and receiving the bread and wine. Many sincere but deceived people attempt self perfection by daily attendance at Mass, in the hope of achieving their own salvation by this easy fleshly road, following their blind leaders and ending in the pit. I was one of them for 36 years What they fail to note is verse 63 of Jn 6 ” It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life”

Hi,
Jesus said of himself in Jn 6.48
” I am the bread of life”

Indeed Jesus also said in Jn 6.58 of himself
“this is the bread that came down out of heaven..”

He said in Jn 6.41
” I am the bread that came down out of heaven”

And in Jn 6.50
“This is the bread which come down out of heaven so that one may eat of it and not die..I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever..”

So is Jesus the living bread, The Word of God that came down out of heaven?

[Sammo]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 17 2006,05:48)

Quote (Sammo @ May 17 2006,01:15) Spot on! Look at the way the word 'aion' is used elsewhere – it's used in verse 8 of the same chapter: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Is that talking about the literal world that was created in Genesis, or about a period of time? Hi sammo, Does that mean you agree the Son of God was involved in the creation of aeons of time? When? How?

Hi Nick

We've already briefly covered this here.

[Sammo]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 17 2006,04:58)

Sammo, I came across this and thought that you would find it an interesting read on the validity of the LXX ….

I did, thanks for posting.

[Sammo]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 17 2006,08:19)

Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” This is an interesting one… will look at that! Thanks

This is the NET Bible footnote:

sn In riddle-like fashion this verse alludes to David, as the references to Bethlehem and to his ancient origins/activities indicate. The passage anticipates the second coming of the great king to usher in a new era of national glory for Israel. Other prophets are more direct and name this coming ideal ruler “David” (Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5). Of course, this prophecy of “David’s” second coming is actually fulfilled through his descendant, the Messiah, who will rule in the spirit and power of his famous ancestor and bring to realization the Davidic royal ideal in an even greater way than the historical David (see Isa 11:1, 10; Jer 33:15).

[Proclaimer]

Quote (t8 @ May 18 2006,04:06)

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 18 2006,03:19) That is not talking about Jesus… but of the Father who deserves glory, majesty, power and authority before all ages, now and forever more… Fair enough, could well be.

To Artizan007,

Actually after reading the verse again, I agree that it is speaking of the Father who deserves glory, majesty, power and authority before all ages, now and forever more…

My original point was not to say that the verse is saying directly that Jesus himself was before all ages, now and forever more…rather the glory through Jesus Christ is before all ages, now and forever more…

I really should read the verse in other translations and look up the Greek, but I don't have time right now. But as it stands from the verse below, it seems to be talking about the glory, majesty, power and authority THROUGH JESUS, before all ages and forevermore.

Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Can you explain how you see the verse?

Thx

[Sammo]

Artizan007,May wrote:

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

This is an interesting one… will look at that! Thanks

[Sammo]

Sorry, I made a big mess of that

Anyway, what I meant to say was also bear in mind that the Jews agreed that this was a Messianic prophecy (see Matt 2:1-6), and I'm pretty sure they weren't expecting a preexistent Messiah.

[Proclaimer]

They were expecting the messiah.

Scripture teaches us that Yeshua/Yahshua/Jesus/the man from Galilee is the messiah. The scriptures also teach that Jesus was the Word and that the Word was with God in the beginning.

So the messiah was not just a prophet of which God had sent many, rather he was his own son. God sent his prototype/firstborn, the original image, the first born of all creation into the world.

God created all things through him and then he redeemed man through him. It makes sense too that God could save all men through the one whom he created all through.

Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The vine existed before any branch, For who heard of a branch that grew without a vine or trunk? I have, it is called a vine or trunk. But we are not that and the vine holds the branches. That is who Jesus is. If we are not in him, then we are the branch that is snapped off or not attached and we will shrivel up and die eventually. But if we are in the vine, we will live for his life will flow through us. His life gives us eternal existence. He is the life, he said it himself.

Jesus is the prototype. The prototype is the original. We are modelled after the original. That is why Jesus is called The image of God and the firstborn over all creation. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. – Colossians 1:17

If Jesus was created at conception, and didn't exist previous to that, then what did God use to hold all things together before Jesus?

Did he use another person? If so, what was his name?

I believe the following verse, do you?

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

[Adam Pastor]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,13:48)

En arxh hn (5713) o logov, kai o logov hn (5713) prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn (5713) o logov. Why do we translate it “and the Word was God”, should it not be “and God was the Word”…

Greetings Artizan007

'god was the word' is in fact, exactly how William Tyndale translated John 1:1 in his first translation of the Greek NT.

BTW, the majority of all English bibles before the 1611 KJV translations, translated John 1:1-4 as follows:

(John 1:1-4)  In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made. 4 In it was life; and the life was the light of men.

Hence 'him' wasn't used.
Just thought I would share that with you! 🙂

[Cubes]

Quote (Adam Pastor @ May 17 2006,17:18)

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,13:48) En arxh hn (5713) o logov, kai o logov hn (5713) prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn (5713) o logov. Why do we translate it “and the Word was God”, should it not be “and God was the Word”… Greetings Artizan007 'god was the word' is in fact, exactly how William Tyndale translated John 1:1 in his first translation of the Greek NT. BTW, the majority of all English bibles before the 1611 KJV translations, translated John 1:1-4 as follows: (John 1:1-4)  In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made. 4 In it was life; and the life was the light of men. Hence 'him' wasn't used. Just thought I would share that with you! 🙂

Greetings AP:

When I view the scripture in the translation you just presented, I end up personifying the word anyway.

Now I end up with more of a problem rather.  Without being disrespectful to God, I imagine using other words in place of word, e.g. “bread, light, spirit [of God], chair…”

THE FOLLOWING IS PRESENTED FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY:  (John 1:1-4)  In the beginning was the “_” was life; and the life was the light of men.

Wouldn't it be less complicated to simply quote Genesis 1:1f here to make the point.  The scriptures had already trained us that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.  So the righteous have always appreciated and regarded the literal sayings of God as not ordinary but coming from the ruler and king of the universe.

God is spirit and we are presented with “the spirit of God” which we understand to emanate from God himself, and being as himself as a man's spirit can be to himself (not another person).  And yet, if we replace “word” say, with “spirit of God” or bread or grape, the object becomes personified as YHWH himself and not as an object or person GIVEN BY GOD and therefore subject to God.  But now the Word has become my YHWH.  Is the word YHWH, or FROM him?

Put another way, can I, should I worship his literal words or holy spirit?  Aren't we called to worship the possessor and giver of the word(s) and holy spirit? It is GOD who gives all these things and so must have control of what he possesses and gives?

Do you see what I mean?  If the Word is YHWH, wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler and clearer to simply quote Genesis in John 1:1f? so that we understand simply that GOD spoke the creation into being with his own words.  Why the suggestive language to a second entity that has led to this mass confusion, if it is confusing?

Regards.

[NickHassan]

Hi sammo,
The Word seen in flesh by John was not a plan, but was “God” and “with God” “in the beginning” according to the Word of God you love.
So how was he involved in the creation of “aeons”of time?

[Cubes]

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY:  WHICH TRANSLATION IS SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED BY SCRIPTURE?

[Author]

Posts