Is Jesus God?

[Donkeyfish07]

Your previous questions will be answered in turn. We are going to deal with ONLY one text at a time. Let us begin with the grammatical structure of the Greek in John 1.

The first thing that must be acknowledged is that Greek, like any other language, has rules of grammar that MUST be followed or language is rendered ineffective as a tool of communication. Words have meanings and every word of scripture is deliberately chosen for effect. Contrary to popular opinion, one cannot make scripture say just anything one wishes it to say. It will only say what God intends for it to say, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is a prostitution of the grammar and a perversion of truth.

These arguments and comments do not originate with me. I have them from a professor of New Testament Greek. I have taken the liberty to rework some of the arguments and added some of my own comments and observations.

John 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
"In beginning was the Word and the word was with the God and God was the Word." There three prepositional phrases present an ontology of God.

There are a couple of things you need to know about Greek syntax in order to understand what John is really saying in this verse. First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal, and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in any prepositional phrase that is unusual, and thus has significant meaning.

The prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" ("In beginning") doesn't contain an article, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," ("The Word was God") however, does include the article (τον). Since it was proper not to include the article here, the INCLUSION of the article means something. In general, the inclusion of an article when it is not expected means you are being very specific about a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we need to go to the last clause. To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to understand Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in Koine Greek. This means that you have two nouns that are the same case (nominative), where one is the subject, and one is the predicate. So if both are in the same case, how do you know which is the subject, and which is the predicate?

Here are the rules: Notice, I said these are rules. You can't ignore them, you can't change them, you can't remove them, and you can't add to them or manipulate them in any way!
1. If both nouns of the same case have the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
2. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
3. If one has an article, but the other does not, then the one WITH the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate.

Are you with me so far?

I'm following, but before we continue. Are you claiming that there is a meaning in Greek that differs from the English translation? Because I do not dispute anything that the English says. I've actually thought about taking up a full study of Greek so why not start now?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I believe Jesus is the Son of YHWH as Jesus himself quite clearly says.

John 9:35-37:

"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee"

saiah 48: 12 “Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. 13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together. 14 '"All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; He shall do His pleasure on Babylon, And His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. 15 I, even I, have spoken; Yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. 16 Come ye near unto me, Hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I, and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

So this is not Jesus speaking here?

and by the way, do you realise the term son of God in dan is not son of yhwh??

 

[oldhermit]

I'm following, but before we continue. Are you claiming that there is a meaning in Greek that differs from the English translation? Because I do not dispute anything that the English says. I've actually thought about taking up a full study of Greek so why not start now?

What I am trying to show you is WHY this verse is translated the way it is in English.

So in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.

When this is translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the Word was God."

Now, there are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction): Now pay attention because it is critical that this is understood. It could mean:
a. The Word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον in the previous clause.
b. Or, that the Word was himself the father.
c. Or, that the Word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
Grammatically, these are your only choices.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason is that since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the identity of θεος.

The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is NOT the same individual as the Father.

Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος would then be “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two and would hinder the trinitarian argument. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD and not separate individuals. This would imply that there is one God who simply "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occurring AFTER λογος. If it is moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.

Still with me?

 

[Donkeyfish07]

What I am trying to show you is WHY this verse is translated the way it is in English.

So in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.

When this is translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the Word was God."

Now, there are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction): Now pay attention because it is critical that this is understood. It could mean:
a. The Word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον in the previous clause.
b. Or, that the Word was himself the father.
c. Or, that the Word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
Grammatically, these are your only choices.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason is that since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the identity of θεος.

The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is NOT the same individual as the Father.

Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος would then be “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two and would hinder the trinitarian argument. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD and not separate individuals. This would imply that there is one God who simply "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occurring AFTER λογος. If it is moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.

Still with me?

I'm a little confused here but not so bad. For example, when you say "και θεος ην ο λογος", this would mean that if it were to be Literally translated from left to right.....it would read "And God was the Word"......but since the article of o attached to "λογος", this makes it the subject and therefore makes "θεος" the predicate.....and this is why the translation is accurately worded in English as "And the Word was God". Am I correct there?

Also, when you say this

"Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction."

That would actually translate as "the word was THE God" correct? Jesus's name is not mentioned there. in the actual passage is it? If your going on the assumption that Jesus is the word itself, you could read it that way. If you believe that the word dwells in Jesus, "And the word was God", I don't see how the greek is in conflict with a non-trinitarian perspective because we know that God dwells in Jesus and Jesus in him. Another question, where is the distinction here in the Greek that the word and god are two separate individuals? Two seperate objects in term of grammar yes, but where does this distinction of personhood come from in the Greek?

 

[oldhermit]

I'm a little confused here but not so bad. For example, when you say "και θεος ην ο λογος", this would mean that if it were to be Literally translated from left to right.....it would read "And God was the Word"......but since the article of o attached to "λογος", this makes it the subject and therefore makes "θεος" the predicate.....and this is why the translation is accurately worded in English as "And the Word was God". Am I correct there?

That is absolutely correct.

Also, when you say this

"Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction."

That would actually translate as "the word was THE God" correct? Jesus's name is not mentioned there. in the actual passage is it? If your going on the assumption that Jesus is the word itself, you could read it that way. If you believe that the word dwells in Jesus, "And the word was God", I don't see how the greek is in conflict with a non-trinitarian perspective because we know that God dwells in Jesus and Jesus in him. Another question, where is the distinction here in the Greek that the word and god are two separate individuals? Two seperate objects in term of grammar yes, but where does this distinction of personhood come from in the Greek?

Forget about the use of the name Jesus for now. We will get to this later. Here is the rest of the grammatical analysis of verse one. This will answer your question.

By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and deliberate things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he places θεος to the front of the clause, placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the INCREASE in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same INDIVIDUAL as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: The Word was God!

Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the same individual as "The God."

One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and nothing more. It is argued that λογος is NOT an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means He did not exist prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was merely an idea, or a plan in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.

John makes this interpretation completely absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God). Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement.

It is the equivalent of saying, “My brain is with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which it could be somewhere else other than with you. Yet, John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by restating it in the second verse: “And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” ουτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means that Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5) “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was.”.

John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John deliberate use of grammar leaves us only ONE possible conclusion: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.

NOBODY WRITES LIKE THE HOLY SPIRIT!

 

[KSublett]

The command was to PREACH the Word by READING the Word for Comfort and Doctrine. God said that man's imagination is only evil continually. Jesus said that doctors of the law take away the key to knowledge: their pride and profit may cause them to TRUMP clear statements that:

There is ONE God the Father and ONE Mediator between Man and God, the Man Jesus Christ. To deny that Christ or MESSIAH did not come in the FLESH is defined as ANTICHRIST. Jesus can be the repository of God's REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE without having the ALMIGHTY living inside of His body and dying.
God has no beginning. If Jesus WAS God or a MEMBER of a family of Gods it would not makes sense. The WORD by the Spirit OF Christ laid the foundation for the REST of Messiah both inclusively and exclusively. To refute the Scribes and Pharisees Jesus called hypocrites, Christ in Ezekiel 33 named self-speakers for hire, beautiful singers and talented instrument players. That is why A Church of Christ (by definition) is built upon or Educated by the Prophets and Apostles.

LOGOS is God's REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE: neither Word nor Logos are the NAMES of an ETERNITY BASED God person.

John does not say that Jesus was the WORD so why accuse him of not ready for prime time? The LOGOS is God's Regulative or governing principle which is opposite of that of the Scribes and Pharisees being speakers making up their own text IN ORDER not to have to speak that which is writteen for out learning so they could make money and NOT get hurt: getting HURT is proof that one SPEAKS the same Regulative PRINCIPLE that Jesus Spoke. God's regulative principle is not and cannot be a PEOPLE.

BEGINNING is not Genesis 1:1 which is the BEGINNING of God rescuing the Hebrews from polytheists.

Arkhē , hē, (v. arkhō) can mean to lay a foundation. In Mark 1 the ARCH is the most important part of the gospel. It can mean thelogos the original argument, Id.Tht.177c, etc.; ta ex a. the principal sum,
2. first principle, element, first so used by Anaximander, acc. to Simp. in Ph.150.23, cf. Arist. Metaph.983b11, etc.; “Hērakleitos tēn a. einai phēsi psukhēn” Id.de An.405a25; of hulē and theos, opp. stoikheia, Placit.1.3.25; practical principle of conduct, “tōn praxeōn tas arkhas kai tas hupotheseis” D. 2.10; principles of knowledge, Arist.Metaph.995b8, al.
arkhō , Ep. inf. arkhein tou logou to open a conversation, Id.An.1.6.6; arkhesthai tou logouto begin one's speech, ib.3.2.7. C

JOHN opened His conversation by saying that the FOUNDATION PRINCIPLE or the ARCH as that which holds up a building is the LOGOS. John is recording the Work done by The Spirit of Christ

Pagans including the Hellenistic confiscated priesthood would be Hermes or Mercury. Jesus was NOT Mercury or Hermes

Acts 14:12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.

HERMES was the great Olympian god of herds, travel, trade, heraldry, language, athletics and thievery. He was also the personal agent and herald of Zeus, the king of the gods. Homeric Hymn 4 to Hermes 490 ff (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C7th to 4th B.C.) : "[Hermes trades with Apollon the GODHEAD of music for the GODHEAD of cattle:]

John 1:1f is parallel to Genesis 1:1f. Moses wrote about the beginning of the Hebrew Nation rescued from the Sumerian city states exactly defined in clay tablets up to a thousand years old when Moses was born.

"Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God" (Ireneus, Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189])

"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to the accomplishing of what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, 'Let us make man in our image and likeness' [Genesis 1:26" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:20:1).

"God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word ... We see things happen similarly among ourselves,
.....for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, .....yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it.
.....We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. (Justin Martyr, c 100-165, First Apology)

"The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is IN the Father and the Father is IN the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit,
"And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by `the Son,' I will tell you briefly: He is the first- begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth to be the model and energizing force of all material things" (Athanagoras, 177 AD, Plea for the Christians 10:2-4).

 

[Donkeyfish07]

That is absolutely correct.



Forget about the use of the name Jesus for now. We will get to this later. Here is the rest of the grammatical analysis of verse one. This will answer your question.

By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and deliberate things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he places θεος to the front of the clause, placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the INCREASE in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same INDIVIDUAL as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: The Word was God!

Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the same individual as "The God."

One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and nothing more. It is argued that λογος is NOT an individual, it is just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means He did not exist prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was merely an idea, or a plan in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.

John makes this interpretation completely absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God). Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement.

It is the equivalent of saying, “My brain is with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which it could be somewhere else other than with you. Yet, John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by restating it in the second verse: “And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” ουτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual who is somehow the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means that Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5) “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was.”.

John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John deliberate use of grammar leaves us only ONE possible conclusion: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.

NOBODY WRITES LIKE THE HOLY SPIRIT!

Quite certainly jesus pre-existed before Earthly birth. He says so himself .

Still sounds like the same problem you have in English though. I do not see how going to the Greek changes anything. There still has to be an assumption that the word is Jesus himself. Is Jesus ever directly stated as being the Logos? It doesn't appear to say anything different in English. All I see established is that Logos and God are two separate grammatical objects in the Greek text (They are in the English as well, we seem to agree that the English is an accurate translation). The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus Christ came in the Flesh. If the word is God, that's no shocker because Jesus said that The father dwells in him and he in the Father. How does this change anything? A few verses later John says he bears witness that Jesus is the Son of God. Why not simply say "Jesus is the Logos?". Or why not include Son of God in the first section?

 

[oldhermit]

Quite certainly jesus pre-existed before Earthly birth. He says so himself .

Still sounds like the same problem you have in English though. I do not see how going to the Greek changes anything.

It was not supposed to change anything. all I was doing was establishing the integrity of the English translation.

There still has to be an assumption that the word is Jesus himself. Is Jesus ever directly stated as being the Logos? It doesn't appear to say anything different in English.

This is the next thing we will look at in John 1

All I see established is that Logos and God are two separate grammatical objects in the Greek text (They are in the English as well, we seem to agree that the English is an accurate translation). The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus Christ came in the Flesh. If the word is God, that's no shocker because Jesus said that The father dwells in him and he in the Father. How does this change anything? A few verses later John says he bears witness that Jesus is the Son of God. Why not simply say "Jesus is the Logos?". Or why not include Son of God in the first section?

Hold on to these questions and we will get to them. Let us establish one concept at a time.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ἐν - perp. - In
ἀρχῇ - noun - sing. dat. fem - beginning
ἦν - verb - 3per. voc. imperfect, ind. - was
ὁ - def. article - the
λόγος, - noun/subj. - Word
καὶ - conj. - and
ὁ - def. article - the
λόγος - noun/subj. Word
ἦν - verb - 3per. voc. imperfect, ind. - was
πρὸς - prep. - with
τὸν - def. article - the
θεόν - noun/obj. of the prep. - God
καὶ - conj. - and
θεὸς - pred. nom. - God
ἦν - verb - 3per. voc. imperfect, ind. - was
ὁ - def. article - the
λόγος - noun/subj. - Word[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Verse 2[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]οὗτος - demon. pronoun - 3per. sing. nom. masc. - He[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ἦν - verb - 3per. voc. imperfect, ind. - was[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ἐν - prep. - in[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ἀρχῇ - noun - sing. dat. fem. - beginning[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]πρὸς - prep. with[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]τὸν - def. article - sing. acc. masc. - the[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]θεόν - noun - sing. acc. masc. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]NAS - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Let's break down the text. Who is the subject of 1-18. The answer is of course the Word. What do we learn from John about this Word in these 18 verses? [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]We learn:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. That even from the beginnig, the Word already was. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. The Word was with God.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. The Word was God.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]4. The Word is personified i.e. he is designated as a person - "HE was in the beginning with God." Not 'it' was in the beginning.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]5. The Word is the originator of all things - "All things came into existence through HIM," not 'it'[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]6. The Word is the possessor of life - "Life was in HIM"[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]7. That life was light.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]8. That same light/Word came into the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]9. The Word is the creator - "The world was made through HIM," not 'it'[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]10. The Word became flesh. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]11. The Word dwelt among us.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]12. The Word is the only begotten from the Father.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]13. The Word is full of grace and truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]13. The Word is the one who was fortold would come after John.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]14. The Word was the giver of grace to man.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]15. Jesus Christ is the one through this grace and truth is realized. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]There are two 3rd per, masc. pronouns applied to the λόγος some 12 times in verses 2-14 as well as one verb in the masc. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Also notice in verse 14 - Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο - "And the Word flesh became". It does not say that the Word was simply placed inside a human but that the Word became human. This is an incarnation, not an indwelling.

It is quite clear from these 14 verses that the Word is not a thing but a person of God who assumes a fleshly form.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What ever else one may or may not understand about Jesus, it is undeniably confirmed by John that HE is the Word who was from the beginning, He is the Word who was with God, HE is the Word who is the Creator of the world, HE is the Word who became flesh, HE is the Word who explained God to man, and He is the Word who IS GOD. [/FONT]The subject of John's pericope does not change form verse 1 through verse 18.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As to whether or not the Word is a person rather than just the speech, wisdom, divine utterance, or an analogy is laid to rest in verse 2. ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον. [/FONT]

The ουτος is masculine gender - He or this one. If the λόγος was simply an abstract it would have to read τοῦτο rather than ουτος. Through out the entire text of John 1 the personal pronoun is repeatedly applied to the Word. He is never referred to as 'it'. The Word is the Subject. Notice:

Verse 2. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ - HE was in the beginning.

V.3 - πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο - all things through HIM came into being.
V.3 - χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν - Through HIM came into being nothing that came into being.
V.4 - ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, - In HIM life was.
V.10 - ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν - In the world HE was
V.10 - καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο - And the world through HIM was made or came into being.
V.10 - καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. - And the world HIM not knew.
V.11 - εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν - To the own HE came
V.11 - καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. - And the own HIM not received.
V.12 - ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτὸν - As many as however received HIM.
V.12 - τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αυτοῦ, - To those that believe on the name of HIM.
V,14 - καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, - And we beheld the glory of HIM

 

[VCO]

Who do you think the OT people think the "son of God" was??

Dan 3:
[SUP]25 [/SUP]“Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”

[SUP]26 [/SUP]Then Nebuchadnezzar went near the mouth of the burning fiery furnace and spoke, saying, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here.” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego came from the midst of the fire.

The description was used by Nebuchadnezzar who believed there were several gods, and he was describing a being that appeared to be MUCH MORE THAN A MAN.

Dan. 3:25
Nebuchadnezzar was watching the proceedings intently from a safe distance. As he peered into the furnace, probably through the lower opening, what he saw amazed him. The men who had been tied up were walking around in the furnace, unbound. And instead of seeing three men in the furnace, he saw four, and he said the fourth was like a son of the gods. This One was probably the preincarnate Christ (cf. comments on Gen. 16:13). Though Nebuchadnezzar did not know of the Son of God, he did recognize that the Person appearing with the three looked supernatural.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty.

I personally absolutely believe that Old Testament saints are those who believed Messiah would come and received Messiah as LORD in their hearts.

Malachi 3:6 (NKJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] "For I am the LORD, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Isaiah 43:10-12 (HCSB)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] “You are My witnesses”— ⌊this is⌋ the LORD’s declaration— “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He.
No god was formed before Me, and there will be none after Me.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me.
[SUP]12[/SUP] I alone declared, saved, and proclaimed— and not some foreign god among you. So you are My witnesses”— ⌊this is⌋ the LORD’s declaration—“and I am God.

John 1:12-13 (HCSB)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] But to all who did receive Him, He gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in His name,
[SUP]13 [/SUP] who were born, not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God. (born again)

Colossians 2:6 (NIV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him,

Romans 10:9 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] that if you confess (not just profess) with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

John 14:9 (HCSB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] Jesus said to him, “Have I been among you all this time without your knowing Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

2 Corinthians 5:19 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.


God most certainly is intelligent enough to say exactly what HE means. Why do so many say or imply that HE did not mean it the way it sounds?

 

[dcontroversal]

Every time I see this pop up I want to say something like...

1. Do we breath air?
2. Did the sun shine today?
3. Do dogs bark?
4. Is the moon still revolving around the earth?
5. Is dirt brown?
6. Do most birds fly?
7. Do we need food and water to live?

ETC........

 

[KSublett]

Word is what one speaks as in WORDS. The Almighty is not very mighty if HE needs THEY to do his creative work. Trying to define God in human terms beyond the sacred pages is a product of theology and not reading the text. Never name your child WORD. Jesus said that doctors of the law "take away the key to knowledge." That is their job: that is what they do.

Jesus spoke in parables from the foundation of the world to hide the WORD from the clergy. Matthew 13.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The description was used by Nebuchadnezzar who believed there were several gods, and he was describing a being that appeared to be MUCH MORE THAN A MAN.

1. He did not call him and angel.
2. he did not call him something inbetween a man and an angel, or a man and God himself.

he said one like the son of God (evidently he understood who the son of Gd was)

I personally absolutely believe that Old Testament saints are those who believed Messiah would come and received Messiah as LORD in their hearts.

Malachi 3:6 (NKJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] "For I am the LORD, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Isaiah 43:10-12 (HCSB)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] “You are My witnesses”— ⌊this is⌋ the LORD’s declaration— “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He.
No god was formed before Me, and there will be none after Me.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me.
[SUP]12[/SUP] I alone declared, saved, and proclaimed— and not some foreign god among you. So you are My witnesses”— ⌊this is⌋ the LORD’s declaration—“and I am God.

John 1:12-13 (HCSB)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] But to all who did receive Him, He gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in His name,
[SUP]13 [/SUP] who were born, not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God. (born again)

Colossians 2:6 (NIV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him,

Romans 10:9 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] that if you confess (not just profess) with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

John 14:9 (HCSB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] Jesus said to him, “Have I been among you all this time without your knowing Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

2 Corinthians 5:19 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.


God most certainly is intelligent enough to say exactly what HE means. Why do so many say or imply that HE did not mean it the way it sounds?

not sure what your trying to say here.

I most certainly appears to me to say Jesus is YHWH, and he is the savoir. And he came to earth. So what is the question?

 

[Donkeyfish07]

It was not supposed to change anything. all I was doing was establishing the integrity of the English translation.



This is the next thing we will look at in John 1



Hold on to these questions and we will get to them. Let us establish one concept at a time.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Ἐν - perp. - In
ἀρχῇ - noun - sing. dat. fem - beginning
ἦν - verb - 3per. voc. imperfect, ind. - was
ὁ - def. article - the
λόγος, - noun/subj. - Word
καὶ - conj. - and
ὁ - def. article - the
λόγος - noun/subj. Word
ἦν - verb - 3per. voc. imperfect, ind. - was
πρὸς - prep. - with
τὸν - def. article - the
θεόν - noun/obj. of the prep. - God
καὶ - conj. - and
θεὸς - pred. nom. - God
ἦν - verb - 3per. voc. imperfect, ind. - was
ὁ - def. article - the
λόγος - noun/subj. - Word


Verse 2
οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
οὗτος - demon. pronoun - 3per. sing. nom. masc. - He
ἦν - verb - 3per. voc. imperfect, ind. - was
ἐν - prep. - in
ἀρχῇ - noun - sing. dat. fem. - beginning
πρὸς - prep. with
τὸν - def. article - sing. acc. masc. - the
θεόν - noun - sing. acc. masc.


NAS - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God
Let's break down the text. Who is the subject of 1-18. The answer is of course the Word. What do we learn from John about this Word in these 18 verses?
We learn:
1. That even from the beginnig, the Word already was.
2. The Word was with God.
3. The Word was God.
4. The Word is personified i.e. he is designated as a person - "HE was in the beginning with God." Not 'it' was in the beginning.
5. The Word is the originator of all things - "All things came into existence through HIM," not 'it'
6. The Word is the possessor of life - "Life was in HIM"
7. That life was light.
8. That same light/Word came into the world.
9. The Word is the creator - "The world was made through HIM," not 'it'
10. The Word became flesh.
11. The Word dwelt among us.
12. The Word is the only begotten from the Father.
13. The Word is full of grace and truth.
13. The Word is the one who was fortold would come after John.
14. The Word was the giver of grace to man.
15. Jesus Christ is the one through this grace and truth is realized.


There are two 3rd per, masc. pronouns applied to the λόγος some 12 times in verses 2-14 as well as one verb in the masc.
Also notice in verse 14 - Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο - "And the Word flesh became". It does not say that the Word was simply placed inside a human but that the Word became human. This is an incarnation, not an indwelling.

It is quite clear from these 14 verses that the Word is not a thing but a person of God who assumes a fleshly form.

What ever else one may or may not understand about Jesus, it is undeniably confirmed by John that HE is the Word who was from the beginning, He is the Word who was with God, HE is the Word who is the Creator of the world, HE is the Word who became flesh, HE is the Word who explained God to man, and He is the Word who IS GOD. The subject of John's pericope does not change form verse 1 through verse 18.

As to whether or not the Word is a person rather than just the speech, wisdom, divine utterance, or an analogy is laid to rest in verse 2. ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον.

The ουτος is masculine gender - He or this one. If the λόγος was simply an abstract it would have to read τοῦτο rather than ουτος. Through out the entire text of John 1 the personal pronoun is repeatedly applied to the Word. He is never referred to as 'it'. The Word is the Subject. Notice:

Verse 2. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ - HE was in the beginning.

V.3 - πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο - all things through HIM came into being.
V.3 - χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν - Through HIM came into being nothing that came into being.
V.4 - ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, - In HIM life was.
V.10 - ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν - In the world HE was
V.10 - καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο - And the world through HIM was made or came into being.
V.10 - καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. - And the world HIM not knew.
V.11 - εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν - To the own HE came
V.11 - καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. - And the own HIM not received.
V.12 - ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτὸν - As many as however received HIM.
V.12 - τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αυτοῦ, - To those that believe on the name of HIM.
V,14 - καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, - And we beheld the glory of HIM

Yes, I'm following. Still no insight that the English does not give. If the Word was God, then of course it's a he. Perhaps you misunderstood me but I've never implied the word of God is an "it". I was merely questioning where this idea of distinct and seperate personhood comes from but that really isn't even the question I'm most concerned about. Does the scripture say anywhere here that Jesus is the Logos? That's my question, because that's the claim being made. Surely that can be answered with a yes or a no. If so, where does the text say this? I'm assuming it doesn't say it anywhere since we agree that there isn't anything wrong with the English translation.

If it doesn't say that, then why even worry about going to the Greek here?

 

[VCO]

Every time I see this pop up I want to say something like...

1. Do we breath air?
2. Did the sun shine today?
3. Do dogs bark?
4. Is the moon still revolving around the earth?
5. Is dirt brown?
6. Do most birds fly?
7. Do we need food and water to live?

ETC........

It is amazing that they would rather jump through 13 interpretation hoops, than admit that JESUS claimed to be GOD in the flesh. But it was prophesied to be this way.

2 Peter 3:2-3 (ESV)
[SUP]2 [/SUP] that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,
[SUP]3 [/SUP] knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.

2 Peter 2:1-2 (HCSB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.
[SUP]2 [/SUP] Many will follow their unrestrained ways, and the way of truth will be blasphemed because of them.

2 Timothy 3:7 (HCSB)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] always learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Romans 1:20-21 (NKJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
[SUP]21 [/SUP] because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

[Angela53510]

KSublett why don't you stop trying to post anymore nonsense and quotes about Hermes, etc.

No one cares to read nonsense that bad here. Why don't you try and follow the Greek that OldHermit is explaining and learn the truth about Jesus, instead of the utter tripe you are posting.

 

[VCO]

1. He did not call him and angel.
2. he did not call him something inbetween a man and an angel, or a man and God himself.

he said one like the son of God (evidently he understood who the son of Gd was)



not sure what your trying to say here.

I most certainly appears to me to say Jesus is YHWH, and he is the savoir. And he came to earth. So what is the question?

Daniel 3:25 (YLT) Young's Literal Translation
[SUP]25 [/SUP] He answered and hath said, `Lo, I am seeing four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like to a son of the gods.'

Nebuchadnezzar did not say SON of GOD as in JESUS, even tho we understand it was literally the pre-incarnate CHRIST that was the Fourth Man In the FIRE. I was referencing the fact that the OT People would have understood that being a pagan the KING was just saying the Fourth Man appeared to be supernatural "like to a son of the gods." I was resonding to the question that was asked: Who do you think the OT people think the "son of God" was??


Johnny Cash The Fourth Man - YouTube

 

[KSublett]

If you like I can cut and past the Greek text with LINKS so you can look up the words. But, that would be to hide the truth in plain English.

We need to talk about Hermes or Mercury because he was the LOGOS of the Greeks and others. Hermes was part of the always-pagan trinity. As ANTIthesis (for we readers). No one who knows the GREEK LITERATURE can fail to grasp that the literal father-mother-son is rank paganism. God IMAGED Himself as a SINGULAR visible-audible entity to make certain that disciples could not miss the point. If you sell the free water of the Word God will make certain that He will HIDE from you.

The Israelites rose up in PLAY (musical idolatry) around Apis representing Osiris, Isis and infant Horus. This is the pattern for all pagan trinities. This was a sin beyond redemption. The Catholic trinity with Mary as the Mediatrix is what theologians have grasped but their scholars refute it.

Hermes was the hired hand for ZEUS and those corrupting the Word meaning selling learning at wholesale adopted the pagan trinity under the NEW HERMENEUTICS. Only very liberals reject the clear statement of Scripture which Christ in Isaiah 55 told ME not to pay for.

Their father is ZEUS and you will hear preachers calling Jesus Je-zeus meaning HAIL ZEUS.

pa^tēr II. Especially as epith. of Zeus, patēr Zeus, p. Kronidēs, p. andrōn te theōn

Kron-idēs [i^, ou, ho, Patron., A.son of Cronos, i.e. Zeus, Il.1.498, al.; Zeus K. 2.111,

Kairos (end time) aka Hermes/Mercury is the son of Chronos as in THRUST IN THE SICKLE the fruit is ripe.

OR pater is the Father of Jesus whom the Father MADE TO BE both Lord and Christ. He was neither Lord nor Christ (Messiah) until God ordained him. Jesus was of the SEED of Mary all of the way back to ABRAHAM. THEREFORE, Jesus of Nazareth did not exist until he was BORN. SEED means SPERM. That is the TRINITARIANS claim that the father god had sex with the mother goddess (spirit). And that is heresy.

Matthew 7:21 [21] Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of MY Father WHO IS IN HEAVEN.
Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not ONE GOD created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is ONE GOD; and there is none other but HE:
Romans 3:30 Seeing it is ONE GOD which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
1Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we by him.
Ephesians 4:6 ONE GOD and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is ONE GOD and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus;
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is ONE GOD; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

 

[Pentacost]

if you want guidance i can prove it to you

 

[Pentacost]

im 42 as well

 

[Pentacost]

dont confuse her brother with this diety Jesus is God and manifested in the flesh and the flesh was called the son of God he use that title son because God was manifested in the flesh