Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will begin with an exegesis of John 1, a post I had made at the end of last year 2009, and will present it again to be countered. More scriptures will be provided as the debate continues to expound this theology:
Christ is Deity
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
The first thing to do here is to explain the difference between Theon and Theos. Both words mean God equally. The difference is Theon is in the accusitive case (it is the direct object of the sentence) and theos is in the nominative case (it is the subject of the sentence).
In the English, word order within a sentence informs the reader of which words are the subject and which word is the direct object. This is not true in the Greek. The clues used to figure out the subject and direct objects of a sentence are called "case endings".
The root of God in the Greek is : Theo
The ending sigma (singular) shows that Theos within a sentence is the subject of that sentence. Therefore, the case ending is nominative or a singular masculine.
The ending ἦν (nominative) shows that Theon within a sentence is the direct object. Therefore, the case ending is accusative or singular masculine.
And if both nouns in a sentence both end in a sigma, as in John 1:1, the definite article, ho, is called the "indicating subject", and its function is to point out to the reader that logos, not theos, is the subject of the clause. This is plain Greek 101.
Another form is Theou, which is genitive.
Of all those who have studied Greek on this list will testify that the inflectional differences in Greek nounsmerely indicates the place or function it has within the sentence. An example in English is:
the Lord/the Lord's
The former may be used in the nominative case (and other cases in Eng.), while the inflection of the latter indicates that it is in the genitive case. But there is no qualitative nor quantitative difference that can be made simply by virtue of the inflection.
TR below, which was derived from the Vulgate, written primarily by Jerome, in the 5th century AD.
Second, let's get down to the schematics and syntax, as well as proper exegesis to the scripture for those that seem a little befuddled by the nature in which John of Zebedee had so meticulously pointed out in his use of grammar.
John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue and discourse in its entirety, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1.
But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.
The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word ἦν (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food"). It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Therefore, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He, God, Christ, predates that beginning.
John is very careful in his language at this point. Throughout this section of his prologue and discourse, John carefully contrasts the Word, and all other things. He does so by consistently using ἦν of the Logos, the Word, and by consistently employing a totally different verb in reference to all other things. This other verb is "to become" (γίνομαι). It is used of John the Baptist in verse 6, of the world in verse 10, and the children of God in verse 12. Only when we come to verse 14 does John use "to become" of the Word, and that is when the Word "became flesh."
This refers to a specific point in time, the incarnation, and fully demonstrates John's intentional usage of contrasting verbs.
John is not alone in this. Jesus contrasted Abraham's "becoming" with His own eternal existence in John 8:58 in the same way.
The Psalmist contrasted the creation of the world with the eternity of God in Psalm 90:2 in the LXX, by using the same verbs found in John 1:1 and 14.
Hardly seems coincidental, does it?
We have seen that the Word is eternal.
John filled the Word with personality and identified the Word not as some fuzzy, ethereal essence that was the guiding principle of all things, (as the Greeks thought it did), but as the eternal Son of God, the One, God, Who entered into time, and into man's experience as Jesus of Nazareth at the time of conception in Mary. The "Word" reveals that Jesus is the mind of God, the thought of God, His full and living revelation, and He is God. Jesus did not just come to tell us what God is like - He showed us in person, because He is, I AM. He is the revelation of God in the flesh.
John did not stop here. He did not leave us to simply know the eternity of the Word. The next phrase says, "and the Word was with God." Again we find the verb "was" cropping up, again pointing to the timelessness of the subject at hand. The Word was with God. The preposition John uses here is quite revealing. It is the Greek word pros. It means "to be in company with someone" or to be "face-to-face."
It speaks of communion, interaction, fellowship.
Remember that this is an eternal fellowship, a timeless relationship. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.
This phrase, if taken completely alone, would be very confusing for anyone as we have seen over and over again, since John has already asserted the eternality of the Word. Now he clearly distinguishes between the Word and God. He asserts that they are distinguishable. "God" and "Word" are not interchangeable terms.
Then, is John talking about two "gods?"
Can more than one being be fully eternal?
John was a monotheistic Jew. He could never believe in more than one Being Who can rightly be called "God."
How then is this to be understood?
This phrase must be taken with the one that follows. We read, "and the Word was God." Again, the eternal ἦν.
John avoids confusion by telling us that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus, as we know Him as the Word, does not constitute everything that is included in the Godhead.
In other words, John is not teaching the ancient heresy known as Sabellianism, which taught that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are simply three different aspects of one person, i.e., Jesus is the Father, the Father is the Spirit, and so on.
Instead, John here asserts the full Deity of Christ, while informing us that He is not the Father, but that they ("God" and the "Word") have eternally co-existed together since the beginning of time.
This last phrase has come under heavy fire throughout this thread and many others. This passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. He did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature, or a god-like one.
Instead, he used theos, the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the "only true God" John 17:3. He uses the term three times of Jesus in the Gospel, here, in 1:18, and in John 20:28.
It can not be doubted that John would never call a creature theos.
His upbringing and Jewish heritage forbad that. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God's coeternal fellow, but the eternal God's self. John of Zebedee walks a tight line here. By the simple ommission of the article ("the", or in Greek, ho) before the word for God in the last phrase, John avoids teaching Sabellianism, while by placing the word where it is in the clause, he defeats another heresy, Arianism, which denies the true Deity of the Lord Jesus. A person who accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures can not help but be thrilled at this passage. John goes on in verse 2 to reiterate the eternal fellowship of the Father and Son, making sure that all understand that "this one," the Word, was (there it is again) in the beginning pros ton theon, with God.
Their fellowship and relationship precedes all else, and it is timeless.
As icing on the cake, for many of you that adhere to this heresy of Christ not being God, John then precludes anyone from misunderstanding his claim that Jesus is eternally God by writing verse 3.
"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."
One can hardly be more inclusive than that. There is simply nothing that is existent anywhere that was not created by the Word. He created everything, as Hebrews 1 points out directly to you all.
Obviously, therefore, if one can be described as creating everything, one must be the Creator, and certainly not a creation. The Word is the Creator. All people reading John's words would understand that the Creator is God, not some lower being created by God to do the work for Him. By not qualifying his statement, John assured that we could correctly understand his intention and his teaching concerning Christ, the Word. He is eternally God, the Creator.
Well said, AMEN! Moderator cut: not the topic
Last edited by Miss Blue; 01-08-2010 at 08:39 PM..
I will begin with an exegesis of John 1, a post I had made at the end of last year 2009, and will present it again to be countered. More scriptures will be provided as the debate continues to expound this theology:
I would rather pick a few relevant items and go from there.. but okay.
Quote:
Christ is Deity
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
The first thing to do here is to explain the difference between Theon and Theos. Both words mean God equally. The difference is Theon is in the accusitive case (it is the direct object of the sentence) and theos is in the nominative case (it is the subject of the sentence).
In the English, word order within a sentence informs the reader of which words are the subject and which word is the direct object. This is not true in the Greek. The clues used to figure out the subject and direct objects of a sentence are called "case endings".
The root of God in the Greek is : Theo
The ending sigma (singular) shows that Theos within a sentence is the subject of that sentence. Therefore, the case ending is nominative or a singular masculine.
The ending ἦν (nominative) shows that Theon within a sentence is the direct object. Therefore, the case ending is accusative or singular masculine.
And if both nouns in a sentence both end in a sigma, as in John 1:1, the definite article, ho, is called the "indicating subject", and its function is to point out to the reader that logos, not theos, is the subject of the clause. This is plain Greek 101.
Another form is Theou, which is genitive.
Of all those who have studied Greek on this list will testify that the inflectional differences in Greek nounsmerely indicates the place or function it has within the sentence. An example in English is:
the Lord/the Lord's
The former may be used in the nominative case (and other cases in Eng.), while the inflection of the latter indicates that it is in the genitive case. But there is no qualitative nor quantitative difference that can be made simply by virtue of the inflection.
TR below, which was derived from the Vulgate, written primarily by Jerome, in the 5th century AD.
Second, let's get down to the schematics and syntax, as well as proper exegesis to the scripture for those that seem a little befuddled by the nature in which John of Zebedee had so meticulously pointed out in his use of grammar.
John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue and discourse in its entirety, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1.
But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.
The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word ἦν (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food"). It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Therefore, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He, God, Christ, predates that beginning.
John is very careful in his language at this point. Throughout this section of his prologue and discourse, John carefully contrasts the Word, and all other things. He does so by consistently using ἦν of the Logos, the Word, and by consistently employing a totally different verb in reference to all other things. This other verb is "to become" (γίνομαι). It is used of John the Baptist in verse 6, of the world in verse 10, and the children of God in verse 12. Only when we come to verse 14 does John use "to become" of the Word, and that is when the Word "became flesh."
This refers to a specific point in time, the incarnation, and fully demonstrates John's intentional usage of contrasting verbs.
John is not alone in this. Jesus contrasted Abraham's "becoming" with His own eternal existence in John 8:58 in the same way.
The Psalmist contrasted the creation of the world with the eternity of God in Psalm 90:2 in the LXX, by using the same verbs found in John 1:1 and 14.
Hardly seems coincidental, does it?
We have seen that the Word is eternal.
John filled the Word with personality and identified the Word not as some fuzzy, ethereal essence that was the guiding principle of all things, (as the Greeks thought it did), but as the eternal Son of God, the One, God, Who entered into time, and into man's experience as Jesus of Nazareth at the time of conception in Mary. The "Word" reveals that Jesus is the mind of God, the thought of God, His full and living revelation, and He is God. Jesus did not just come to tell us what God is like - He showed us in person, because He is, I AM. He is the revelation of God in the flesh.
John did not stop here. He did not leave us to simply know the eternity of the Word. The next phrase says, "and the Word was with God." Again we find the verb "was" cropping up, again pointing to the timelessness of the subject at hand. The Word was with God. The preposition John uses here is quite revealing. It is the Greek word pros. It means "to be in company with someone" or to be "face-to-face."
It speaks of communion, interaction, fellowship.
Remember that this is an eternal fellowship, a timeless relationship. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.
This phrase, if taken completely alone, would be very confusing for anyone as we have seen over and over again, since John has already asserted the eternality of the Word. Now he clearly distinguishes between the Word and God. He asserts that they are distinguishable. "God" and "Word" are not interchangeable terms.
Then, is John talking about two "gods?"
Can more than one being be fully eternal?
John was a monotheistic Jew. He could never believe in more than one Being Who can rightly be called "God."
How then is this to be understood?
This phrase must be taken with the one that follows. We read, "and the Word was God." Again, the eternal ἦν.
John avoids confusion by telling us that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus, as we know Him as the Word, does not constitute everything that is included in the Godhead.
In other words, John is not teaching the ancient heresy known as Sabellianism, which taught that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are simply three different aspects of one person, i.e., Jesus is the Father, the Father is the Spirit, and so on.
Instead, John here asserts the full Deity of Christ, while informing us that He is not the Father, but that they ("God" and the "Word") have eternally co-existed together since the beginning of time.
This last phrase has come under heavy fire throughout this thread and many others. This passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. He did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature, or a god-like one.
Instead, he used theos, the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the "only true God" John 17:3. He uses the term three times of Jesus in the Gospel, here, in 1:18, and in John 20:28.
It can not be doubted that John would never call a creature theos.
His upbringing and Jewish heritage forbad that. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God's coeternal fellow, but the eternal God's self. John of Zebedee walks a tight line here. By the simple ommission of the article ("the", or in Greek, ho) before the word for God in the last phrase, John avoids teaching Sabellianism, while by placing the word where it is in the clause, he defeats another heresy, Arianism, which denies the true Deity of the Lord Jesus. A person who accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures can not help but be thrilled at this passage. John goes on in verse 2 to reiterate the eternal fellowship of the Father and Son, making sure that all understand that "this one," the Word, was (there it is again) in the beginning pros ton theon, with God.
Their fellowship and relationship precedes all else, and it is timeless.
As icing on the cake, for many of you that adhere to this heresy of Christ not being God, John then precludes anyone from misunderstanding his claim that Jesus is eternally God by writing verse 3.
"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."
One can hardly be more inclusive than that. There is simply nothing that is existent anywhere that was not created by the Word. He created everything, as Hebrews 1 points out directly to you all.
Obviously, therefore, if one can be described as creating everything, one must be the Creator, and certainly not a creation. The Word is the Creator. All people reading John's words would understand that the Creator is God, not some lower being created by God to do the work for Him. By not qualifying his statement, John assured that we could correctly understand his intention and his teaching concerning Christ, the Word. He is eternally God, the Creator.
After all that I would like to split the discourse up a bit to make it easier for the readers and myself as well as my opponent. If you feel I left out something let me know.
If John had been trying to note that Jesus was God none of this in the passages you quote would make sense. Here is why:
1. Why didn't John, Jesus or any of the other disciples state "Jesus is God" or "I am the God of Abraham?"
2. In the Greek is the "λ" of λόγος capitalized in the original manuscripts? Is there an emphasis on "the Word" as opposed to "the word?" Or is John simply stating that the word of God came down upon flesh and that word is God... The word of God is God is not so hard to understand. My word is me. When I speak it is my mind and body that backs up the words I speak. I find no indication that there is a person or entity named logos.. How then do you take logos as a person separate from God?
3. The word became flesh: There is a word in the hebrew דְּבַר־ transliterated as dabar that is equal to the greek logos. The word dabar is used here:
2 Kings 9:36 They went back and told Jehu, who said, "This is the word of the LORD that he spoke through his servant Elijah the Tishbite: On the plot of ground at Jezreel dogs will devour Jezebel's flesh.
Clearly the word (dabar, logos) of God came upon Elijah the Tishbite. Jesus also received the word (dabar, logos) and God certainly spoke through Jesus and Elijah (for example) in the same manner. Therefore it would be correct to state that in Elijahs case as well as Jesus', that the word became flesh. Does that mean Elijah is also God come down from heaven to be a man?
I do not doubt that the word of God is God and represents God. I only oppose that the word of God is a separate entity that qualifies Jesus as God-man. There is no evidence here to suggest that Jesus is anything but a keeper of the word of God, a messenger of God which we all know is obviously the truth. Why add to that and state that God came to earth as a man named Jesus to deceive the world into thinking he was just a man.
There are no clear verses that state Jesus is God.. why the secret?
Yet we see here, 2 John 1:7, that there is a clear admonishment for all who follow God to acknowledge Jesus is flesh, mortal... opposite of deity.
How can you say Jesus is God when it is clear antichrist behavior to state Jesus is not flesh. Aren't you adding to the text in that instance?
Again, I have no argument with the word of God being God. Or that the word of God created the world and through Christ the word spread...
However, I think you take the word (dabar, logos) to a new level that is not expressed in scripture.
Obviously, therefore, if one can be described as creating everything, one must be the Creator, and certainly not a creation. The Word is the Creator. All people reading John's words would understand that the Creator is God, not some lower being created by God to do the work for Him. By not qualifying his statement, John assured that we could correctly understand his intention and his teaching concerning Christ, the Word. He is eternally God, the Creator.
Then you must prove that John, a jew, would have accepted the idea that Jesus was God come down from heaven as a human. Please establish that fact before moving on.
In my research of the Jewish beliefs it would be totally opposite of what they were taught to accept Jesus as God himself. But I will leave that open for you to establish that John or any other first century person would have accepted Jesus being God in flesh.
According to What Jews Believe at www.whatjewsbelieve.org:
"This means that basic to the faith of the Jewish People, is the distinction between God and man, a distinction which is not found in Christianity. This confusion, the mixing of Man with gods, was common in the ancient pagan world. "
Thus can you counter that the Jews would never have believed nor taught that God was a man?
I have a question. In Rev 22 is John talking to 2 people, or 1. It says:
He said to me, "See you don't do it! I am a fellow bondservant with you and with your brothers, the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
This after John was going to worship Him. You would think this would have been clarified, right? Instead we are left wondering.
I would rather pick a few relevant items and go from there.. but okay.
After all that I would like to split the discourse up a bit to make it easier for the readers and myself as well as my opponent. If you feel I left out something let me know.
Excellent idea, and I will do the same. God bless and may Christ bless you every day!
Quote:
If John had been trying to note that Jesus was God none of this in the passages you quote would make sense. Here is why:
Why didn't John, Jesus or any of the other disciples state "Jesus is God" or "I am the God of Abraham?"
There are several places within the scripture wherein the mystery was revealed for us by the 1st Century apostles/disciples concerning His deity. It is also neccessary to note, as I did in the first post, with clarity, that the disciple, expecially here with John, the need for John to stray from the allusion that Christ was in fact separate from God.
Quote:
His upbringing and Jewish heritage forbad that. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God's coeternal fellow, but the eternal God's self. John of Zebedee walks a tight line here. By the simple ommission of the article ("the", or in Greek, ho) before the word for God in the last phrase, John avoids teaching Sabellianism, while by placing the word where it is in the clause, he defeats another heresy, Arianism, which denies the true Deity of the Lord Jesus. A person who accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures can not help but be thrilled at this passage. John goes on in verse 2 to reiterate the eternal fellowship of the Father and Son, making sure that all understand that "this one," the Word, was (there it is again) in the beginning pros ton theon, with God.
Their fellowship and relationship precedes all else, and it is timeless.
If John was to allude that Christ was separate from God, he would be guilty of a doctrine that was considered to be heretical in his time.
Quote:
This last phrase has come under heavy fire throughout this thread and many others. This passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. He did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature, or a god-like one.
Instead, he used theos, the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the "only true God" John 17:3. He uses the term three times of Jesus in the Gospel, here, in 1:18, and in John 20:28.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
In the Greek is the "λ" of λόγος capitalized in the original manuscripts? Is there an emphasis on "the Word" as opposed to "the word?" Or is John simply stating that the word of God came down upon flesh and that word is God... The word of God is God is not so hard to understand. My word is me. When I speak it is my mind and body that backs up the words I speak. I find no indication that there is a person or entity named logos.. How then do you take logos as a person separate from God?
3. The word became flesh: There is a word in the hebrew דְּבַר־ transliterated as dabar that is equal to the greek logos. The word dabar is used here:
2 Kings 9:36 They went back and told Jehu, who said, "This is the word of the LORD that he spoke through his servant Elijah the Tishbite: On the plot of ground at Jezreel dogs will devour Jezebel's flesh.
In order for John to steer clear of the heresy of Sabellianism and Arianism, he had to prove that Jesus was in fact God. In this verse:
14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
We will analyze the word skēnoō - dwelt
to fix one's tabernacle, have one's tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent), tabernacle
From the Root skēnos
a tabernacle, a tent
metaphor of the human body, in which the soul dwells as in a tent, and which is taken down at death
Clearly this is alluding to the very nature wherein God dwells in His tabernacle, another distinct reminder in which the human form of Jesus, did God dwell personally in the earthly tabernacle in His son, Jesus. The very nature of God was indeed represented in the man Jesus Christ, but it was more than just a man, with a soul like each and every one of us, but within the man Jesus Christ, was the spirit of God, skēnoō in the flesh of what we know of as Jesus Christ. The human form Jesus Christ was very human, with blood, bones and flesh, but within that human form of Jesus Christ, dwelt the Holy One of Israel, God Jehovah. His spirit was God.
The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of "the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." There is still a meeting place where God meets with man, and holds fellowship with him. That place is the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
The manhood of Christ had become to us, the anti-type of that tent in the center of the camp wherein God ad dwelled. God is in Christ Jesus; Christ Jesus is God; and in His person God dwells in the midst of us as in a tent; for such is the force of the original in our text.
The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled, or tented, among us.
That is to say, in Christ Jesus the Lord dwelt among men, as God of old dwelt in His sanctuary in the midst of the tribes of Israel in the flesh born of the woman Mary, and God humbled in the form of human, to save His people from Sin, to become the ultimate sacrifice.
The Lord God doth dwell among us through the incarnation of His Son.
I will address the remainder of your post soon as I can, most definitley sometime tomorrow. Bear with me Kat, as you know I am a chef.
Thank you and God bless you all.
In the Greek is the "λ" of λόγος capitalized in the original manuscripts? Is there an emphasis on "the Word" as opposed to "the word?" Or is John simply stating that the word of God came down upon flesh and that word is God... The word of God is God is not so hard to understand. My word is me. When I speak it is my mind and body that backs up the words I speak. I find no indication that there is a person or entity named logos.. How then do you take logos as a person separate from God?
Next we are going to analyze the "word"
I am interested at this point, why are you putting emphasis on the capitalization, when in fact, these things weren't in play in the ancient language, as this was done by the translators based on their analysis of the text as a whole regarding the nature of Christ?
This was out of respect for their faith in the Man God, as we do today, but is undebatable in this regard, and serves no purpose to the debate.
Let's stick to the analysis of the text, rather than the punctuation.
The Word - λόγος
Quote:
The word became flesh:
There is a word in the hebrew דְּבַר־ transliterated as dabar that is equal to the greek logos. The word dabar is used here:
2 Kings 9:36 They went back and told Jehu, who said, "This is the word of the LORD that he spoke through his servant Elijah the Tishbite: On the plot of ground at Jezreel dogs will devour Jezebel's flesh.
Clearly the word (dabar, logos) of God came upon Elijah the Tishbite. Jesus also received the word (dabar, logos) and God certainly spoke through Jesus and Elijah (for example) in the same manner. Therefore it would be correct to state that in Elijahs case as well as Jesus', that the word became flesh. Does that mean Elijah is also God come down from heaven to be a man?
The difference between Elijah and Jesus is the fact that the Word, skēnoō - tabernacled in the man Jesus Christ, as I have pointed out in the previous post, but will do so again here, briefly so I can get the point across regarding this error in in interpretation. In 2 Kings 9:36, we see that the word of the Lord, the logos of the Lord, divine in all its attributes, indeed spoke through Elijah, as He did through many of His servants and prophets, but what He did not do, was dwell in them in the same sense as He had dwelled in the Tabernacle of Meeting, or in the Most Holy Place, as He did with the man Jesus Christ.
Therein He dwelt, He tabernacled in Him, using the human form of Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, name Immanuel "God with Us", to house His spirit wherein Christ was, is and always be the Lord and Holy One of Israel, humbled in the flesh.
Just as our own earthly house is represented in 2 Cor 5:1
For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle - σκήνους - skēnos were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
We must also note closely the text in John 1:14 is in regard with several words involved with dwelt, taberbnacled and that is ἐσκήνωσεν
I have bolded skēnoō so that we can clearly see that this word, wherein God dwelt in the human form of Christ, that it is entirely a different application than just a average tent, or mere housing for those amongst the normal kind of man, short of deity.
The New International version rightly translates this part of the verse, and in reality, simplifies the text as it is read in the Greek:
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Quote:
I do not doubt that the word of God is God and represents God. I only oppose that the word of God is a separate entity that qualifies Jesus as God-man. There is no evidence here to suggest that Jesus is anything but a keeper of the word of God, a messenger of God which we all know is obviously the truth. Why add to that and state that God came to earth as a man named Jesus to deceive the world into thinking he was just a man.
John’s use of the term Logos is deeply rooted in Old Testament thought (see Genesis 1, Proverbs 8 in the use of what you have already presented as dabar). The role of the Johannine Logos also parallels, in some ways, that of personified Wisdom in a number of traditions within Judaism (see Sirach 24). However, Wisdom and the Logos need not be identified with each other, since Wisdom is a creation of God (Sirach 1: 9), while the Logos is pre-existent and Divine. At the same time, John’s use of such language in this first century Mediterranean setting, also recalls associations with Hellenistic thinking of the time, when the term “Logos†had played a key role in Stoic thought, and in the writings of Hellenistic Jewish thinkers like Philo.
The Chaldee paraphrase very frequently calls the Messiah Memra, the Word of Jehovah, and speaks of many things in the Old Testament, said to be done by the Lord, as done by that Word of the Lord. Even the Jews of the Old Covenant were taught that the Word of God was the same with God.
This movement is also apparent in John's use of the verb “to become†as I pointed in the first presentation of the text, but will expound again with the term - ginomai - in place of “to be.†In this way, John signals that the Word has taken on a new form in a dramatic way.
Paradoxically, the Word that was fully God is now completely “flesh†- sarx, but both are equally true. There is a similar parallel between “was with God†- verse 1 - and “made his dwelling among us†- verse 14.
The verb used here – “to make one’s dwelling†skenoo – as we saw earlier - draws on the Exodus traditions of a God who once lived among his people in the Tabernacle, cross reference: also see Exodus 33; and made his glory visible to his people there - Exodus 40: 34; see 1 Kings 8: 11.
This theme was continued in prophetic literature, including Joel, Zechariah and Ezekiel, and is a theme in the entire story of God’s covenant with Israel.
Another important concept we also need to examine is the term “glory†- doxa - which is introduced here in verse 14. This is another one of the very special terms found here in the fourth Gospel, where it occurs 35 of the 185 times it is found in the New Testament. It is deeply rooted in the Old Testament, where the Hebrew concept of - kabod - embodies the dual sense of God’s ruling divinity made visible through observable actions of great power and divine occurrences made known in the reality of mankind, harbored in our own dimension and time space continuum.
Quote:
Yet we see here, 2 John 1:7, that there is a clear admonishment for all who follow God to acknowledge Jesus is flesh, mortal... opposite of deity.
I don't really see the relationship here, as I feel in it ripped out of context. In 2 John 1:7, this prose has nothing to do with worshipping "the man" Jesus Christ or the acknowledgment of His flesh, but rather the exposition is solely dealing with those that are counter Christ, and that He had certainly come in the flesh - alluding to the doctrine of Jesus Christ - 2 John 1:9, a direct parallel into which John clearly taught in his Gospel chapter 1 which is what is being discussed, and most notably, those in that very time in which the letter was written, as many false prophets were increasing in the Roman Empire, as well as the fervent persecution of Christians by the Jews, with the help of Nero's armed militia. This letter is a letter of warning to those that do not acknowledge Him, Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh, and by directly expanding on the very Doctrine of Jesus Christ - 2 John 1:9, which was ever so present in the New Testament, most notably, the text in which we are dealing with wherein Jesus Christ is imposed from the disciple, as he so eloquently and poetically discerned the true nature of God in the Flesh, in the man Jesus Christ.
I will stop here, and let you counter my response to your entire post, but I will say this:
Quote:
There are no clear verses that state Jesus is God.. why the secret?
These very few verses in John 1 is most clear cut evidence of His deity, and can be supported throughout the New testament, which we have touched on briefly, but will continue further, for the reader to understand.
These few verses are the complete fulfillment of the longstanding promise God had made originally to mankind, dating from the time where Adam and Eve dwelt in the garden with God, up until the point John the Baptist cried out in the wilderness in vengeance for the Lord's servant's blood, and paved the way for the Holy One of Israel, to step into our time, and fulfill His promise as savior, first to His firstborn, followed with the Gentiles, so that He could bring all those with a circumcised heart in Him, with the promise and inheritance of eternal life.
Then you must prove that John, a jew, would have accepted the idea that Jesus was God come down from heaven as a human. Please establish that fact before moving on.
In my research of the Jewish beliefs it would be totally opposite of what they were taught to accept Jesus as God himself. But I will leave that open for you to establish that John or any other first century person would have accepted Jesus being God in flesh.
According to What Jews Believe at www.whatjewsbelieve.org:
"This means that basic to the faith of the Jewish People, is the distinction between God and man, a distinction which is not found in Christianity. This confusion, the mixing of Man with gods, was common in the ancient pagan world. "
Thus can you counter that the Jews would never have believed nor taught that God was a man?
The Jewish religious leaders would have never taught this because they did not recognize Jesus as God and man.They did not accept Jesus or His teachings because they were blinded to the truth.
Jesus asked the Jews this this very question in the temple because He knew they were blinded to the truth.
Even these 2 accounts in the New Testament testify that Jesus is God and man.
Matthew 22:41-46
Mark 12:35-37
After Jesus ascended, the apostles stunned both Jew and Roman by proclaiming Jesus as “Lordâ€. And the apostles did the unthinkable and worshipped Jesus, even praiyng to him as if he was God. Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit†as he was being stoned to death. (Acts 7:59).
The apostles, most of whom were martyred, passed on their knowledge of Jesus to church fathers who carried on their message into the next generation.
Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote about Jesus' 2nd coming, "Look for him that is above the times, him who has not times, him who is invisible". In a letter to Polycarp he states "Jesus is God", "God incarnate," and to the Ephesians he writes, "...God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life." (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13)
Clement of Rome in 96 A. D. also taught Jesus’ divinity, saying, “We ought to think of Jesus Christ as of God.†(2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 1:1)
Polycarp, also a pupil of John’s, was tried before the Roman proconsul for worshipping Jesus as Lord. While the frenzied crowd shouted for his blood, the Roman judge demanded he proclaim Caesar as Lord. But Polycarp went to the stake, rather than renounce Jesus as his Lord, responding,
"Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?"
After Jesus ascended, the apostles stunned both Jew and Roman by proclaiming Jesus as “Lord”. And the apostles did the unthinkable and worshipped Jesus, even praiyng to him as if he was God. Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” as he was being stoned to death. (Acts 7:59).
The apostles, most of whom were martyred, passed on their knowledge of Jesus to church fathers who carried on their message into the next generation.
Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote about Jesus' 2nd coming, "Look for him that is above the times, him who has not times, him who is invisible". In a letter to Polycarp he states "Jesus is God", "God incarnate," and to the Ephesians he writes, "...God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life." (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13)
Clement of Rome in 96 A. D. also taught Jesus’ divinity, saying, “We ought to think of Jesus Christ as of God.” (2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 1:1)
Polycarp, also a pupil of John’s, was tried before the Roman proconsul for worshipping Jesus as Lord. While the frenzied crowd shouted for his blood, the Roman judge demanded he proclaim Caesar as Lord. But Polycarp went to the stake, rather than renounce Jesus as his Lord, responding,
"Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?"
Again you are using words that are actually interchangable throughout the languages of the time.
Calling someone Lord is NOT calling them the same as the Father which is in heaven.
People called people lords all the time in those days. In fact, anyone with authority was called lord. It is not the name of God, nor of Jesus. It is the TITLE to which we, as Christians, attribute TO them, by proclaiming BOTH, our GOD and LORD, and even KING.
Notice Polycarp went to the stake, INSTEAD of calling anyone else lord. But this is OVER him, not anyone else, for he could not speak for anyone else.
Serving Christ Jesus is what we, as Christians do. As such, we should never renounce Him as Lord, or as God, or as King, over our individual lives.
This whole debate is a play on words, as I keep saying.
Sciotamick says:
Quote:
The difference between Elijah and Jesus is the fact that the Word, skēnoō - tabernacled in the man Jesus Christ, as I have pointed out in the previous post, but will do so again here, briefly so I can get the point across regarding this error in in interpretation. In 2 Kings 9:36, we see that the word of the Lord, the logos of the Lord, divine in all its attributes, indeed spoke through Elijah, as He did through many of His servants and prophets, but what He did not do, was dwell in them in the same sense as He had dwelled in the Tabernacle of Meeting, or in the Most Holy Place, as He did with the man Jesus Christ.
See, this is what we have been saying ALL along. God the Father tabernacled IN the man Jesus. Hense, the anointing, or Christ. He didn't speak only through Jesus, as He did with Elijah, but made His dwelling IN Him. So what are we disagreeing with here, and where is the debate?
Also Sciotamick said:
Quote:
These few verses are the complete fulfillment of the longstanding promise God had made originally to mankind, dating from the time where Adam and Eve dwelt in the garden with God, up until the point John the Baptist cried out in the wilderness in vengeance for the Lord's servant's blood, and paved the way for the Holy One of Israel, to step into our time, and fulfill His promise as savior, first to His firstborn, followed with the Gentiles, so that He could bring all those with a circumcised heart in Him, with the promise and inheritance of eternal life.
Yes the promises were made. The prophesies fulfilled.
But the Holy One of Israel came FROM Israel. This is supported in scripture. Also, we see Jesus Christ being the CORNERSTONE of the Temple. Well, use logic here. Why would Jesus be the cornerstone for a temple, when the temple is used to house the Glory of God the Father, if in fact, Jesus WERE God the Father, or of another 3=1 substance?
Jesus said:
Jhn 14:10
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
If a Christian today did miracles, as much the same as Jesus,,,would not the response given to the naysayers be the same?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and Son,,and the Father and Son are IN me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on MY OWN INITIATIVE, but the Father and Son IN me does His works.
Would this then me that we are of the same substance of the Father and Son? IOW, would I be called GOD? Jesus said:
Mar 10:18
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good("agathos")? No one is good except God alone.
If there was ever a time to clear up this whole misunderstanding, this verse was it. But it is not. In the prior verse we see a seeker asking Jesus:
As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt("gonypeteō")before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
He knelt before Him. This was an act of reverence.
Jesus really could have cleared it all up, right then and there. Instead He says not to call Him even Good. That is reserved for God ALONE.
Paul says in Ephesians 3:
Therefore I ask you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, for they are your glory. For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; {and} that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
Notice the parts I underlined. His Spirit,,,the Father's Spirit,,,IS the Spiritual Anointing, which is called the Christ.
Well, the first thing I would ask is the definitions people are attributing:
What is god?
What is Christ?
What is Yeshua?
I ask these, because people often mistake these words and use then interchangably.
When people say Jesus Christ,,,that is not His first and last name. That is His name and definition. Hense, Jesus the anointed.
When people say god, or God,,,that is not our God's name. His name is Yahweh. God can mean any number of things, like rulers, judges, kings, etc. God is a title for those in position of authority.
When people say Christ,,,this is merely the english translation of anointing. That is it. It is the same word as mashach in Hebrew, correct? But for Jesus, it is used as an adjective, describing WHO Jesus was. Anointed.
It is kinda like putting a halo around His head in the pictures. It shows the anointing going on, full time, with the fullness of the Deity.
My question is when did it start?
Did it start at birth, or at the baptism? If the Christ came into Him at the baptism, which is really what the scriptures CLEARLY show,,then How could Jesus be equal with the Father since birth. IOW, why the need for the Spirit to anoint Him?
So, the anointing IS of and IS God the Father indwelling in the flesh. Since all authority was GIVEN to Jesus of Nazareth, being perfectly Righteous, that would mean the fullness was given as well. So when we receive the Spirit, it is OF the Father AND Son,,not seperate. The Father is still God of all, but now Jesus is God of us,,as the head of authority as His Church, His Bride, His Kingdom. But one day, He gives BACK to the Father the complete Headship. Then, and only then, can God the Father be all, in ALL. Of course, this is after His enemies are destroyed forever.
Makes perfect sense to me,,,but hey,,,that is just me.
Excellent Post!!! It makes perfect sense to me also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
