- This topic has 25,965 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 hour, 33 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God
Certainly the apostle John was not so unreasonable as to say that someone (“the Word”) was with some other individual (“God”) and at the same time was that other individual (“God”).
John proves that the Word who was with God “was made flesh” and became Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was “the Son of God.”
So it would be proper to say that the Word was the Son of God. For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings.
In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy)
Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God.
EN ARKHEI EN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS
IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORDEN PROS TON THN, KAI THS EN HO LOGOS.
WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.HOUTOS EN EN ARKHEI PROS TON THN.
THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD.It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person
It would be pure Sabellianism to say “the Word was ho theós [The God ]”.
the omission of the definite article the before the Greek word theós makes the word theós like an adjective that “describes the nature of the Word” rather than identify his person.
This fact accounts for it that some translators render it: “And the Word was divine.”
According to trinitarians the Word was only a third of God, a coequal Second Person in a three-in-one God. However, our consideration of all that John has written has proved how false such a teaching is, a teaching that even the trinitarians themselves cannot understand or explain
The Word is the Son of God, not the Second Person of God.
The Four Gospels, by C. C. Torrey, shows the difference between theós with ho (the definite article) and theós without ho by printing his translation as follows: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (Second edition of 1947)
He is the “only begotten Son” because he is the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature. (John 3:16, AV; AS; Dy)
Like a word that is produced by a speaker, the Word or Logos is God’s creation, God’s first creation
To show that he was God’s Word or spokesman, Jesus said to the Jews: “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” Explaining that he spoke for God, Jesus also said: “Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.”—John 7:16, 17; 12:50, AV.
Since Jesus Christ as the Word of God occupies a position held by no other creation of God, we can appreciate why the apostle John wrote, in John 1:1: “And the Word was a god.” We can appreciate also John’s words in John 1:18, as recorded in the most ancient Greek manuscripts: “No man hath seen God at any time: an Only Begotten God, the One existing within the bosom of the Father, he hath interpreted him.” (Ro) Since he is “an Only Begotten God” who has interpreted his heavenly Father to us, we can appreciate the proper force of the words of the apostle Thomas addressed to the resurrected Jesus Christ: “My Lord and my God.”—John 20:28.
Because Jesus Christ as “the Word of God” is the universal Spokesman for God his Father, the apostle John very fittingly presents Jesus Christ as God’s Chief Witness. The bearing of witness was the chief purpose of the Word or Logos in becoming flesh and dwelling among us creatures of blood and flesh. Standing before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate when on trial for his life, the Word made flesh said: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”—John 18:37, AV.
In view of his record when he was on earth as God’s chief witness, the “Word of God” in heavenly glory could say, in Revelation 3:14: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” (AV) Consequently the apostle John could pray for grace and peace to the Christian congregations from God and “from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.” (Rev. 1:4, 5, AV)
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
Jesus Christ himself said, “The Father is greater than I am” and referred to the Father as his God, “the only true God.” (John 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; Mr 15:34; Re 1:1; 3:12) On numerous occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father. (Mt 4:9, 10; 20:23; Lu 22:41, 42; John 5:19; 8:42; 13:16) Even after Jesus’ ascension into heaven his apostles continued to present the same picture.—1Co 11:3; 15:20, 24-28; 1Pe 1:3; 1Jo 2:1; 4:9, 10.
Paul showed how first-century Christians correctly understood the relationship between Jesus and his heavenly Father when he wrote that “there is actually to us one God the Father . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
This Word, or Lo´gos, was God’s only direct creation, the only-begotten son of God, and evidently the close associate of God to whom God was speaking when he said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26)
1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.
1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
There was [a time] when [the Son] was not, and, before being born He was not, and He came into existence out of nothing, and the Son of God is of a different hypostasis [ essence ] or substance than the Father, is created, is subject to alteration or change.
Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) commented: “Since He said ‘one’ thing,[] let the heretics understand that He did not say ‘one’ person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the
identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection.”Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.): “We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For ‘the Father,’ says He, ‘is greater than I.’ The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge.”—Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8.
There the Son is called “Mighty God,” ´El Gib·bohr´, not “Almighty God.” That term in Hebrew is ´El Shad·dai´ and applies uniquely to YHWH God.
‘’The Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes. They are two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father’s will always prevailing with the Son.”
The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers, that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ’’
One of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date it before or about the year 100 C.E. There is no Trinity in this.
God the Father is, as it were, God par excellence. Olny the father is unoriginate, immortal, immutable, ineffable, invisible, and ingenerate. It is He who has made all things [ including the Son ] out of nothing.
Apostolic Fathers:
Clement of Rome’s First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians: “The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.”
Let all the nations realize that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is your Child.”
Ignatius of Antioch: “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,”
Ignatius shows that the Son was not eternal as a person but was created, for he has the Son saying: “The Lord [Almighty God] created Me, the beginning of His ways.”
Polycarp says: “Peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour.” Here again, Jesus is distinct from Almighty God.
Hermas’ the Shepherd: “The Son of God is older than all his creation.” He clearly viewed the Son as a creature.
The fact is that the Son is not eternal. He was created as a spirit creature of high rank, before other spirit creatures, such as the angels, who were created by means of him
Son of God is a separate, lesser, subordinate spirit creature whom God created to serve Him in accomplishing His will.
Apologists:
Justin Martyr (110 to 165 C.E) says in his Dialogue With Trypho: “The Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.”
Dialogue With Trypho: “There is . . . another God and Lord [the prehuman Jesus] subject to the Maker of all things [Almighty God]; who [the Son] is also called an Angel’’
Tertullian (c. 160 to 230 C.E.) “The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: ‘My Father is greater than I’.
Tertullian’s Against Hermogenes: ‘’That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being.”
“We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated’’
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 to 215 C.E.) Clement calls the Supreme God “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus”
Agreeing with Clement of Alexandria Peter, Paul, and the apostle John, who mind you also wrote john 1:1, each state and talk of the ”GOD and Father of JESUS ( LOGOS ) ”, this is stated in 1 Peter 1:3, ephesians 1:3, 1:17, 2 Corinthians 1:3, revelation 1:6, 1 corinthians 15:24. Jesus Himself, after He has been resurrecred refers to YHWH God as ”MY GOD” once in revelation 3:2 and no less than 4 TIMES! in Revelation 3:12. Now, anyone who calls someone MY GOD, obviously is NOT THE GOD. To say that would be silly. Obviously the Father is the Supreme One, THE GOD, without beginning and greater than ALL, including Jesus ( john 14:28, 1 corinthians 11:3 )! The trinity doctrine was merely a heresy invented by Greek ”Church Fathers” in the 4 century. Arius was simply one man along the long list of predecessors who taught the supremcacy of the Father above all. At around the end of the 2 century, Tertullian supposed that God was ”one substance in three persons” but even His trinity was not the one existent today, for He said there was a time when the Son was not, as Arius did. He and Theophilus were the first ones to introduce the word trinity and triad, around the end of the 2 century. In the 3 century the ones that came after them expounded on these ideas and very slowly and gradually, toward the end of the 4 century, 200 years LATER, the ”Most Holy Trinity” was formed. One must keep in mind that trinites were UNIVERSAL in the ancient world, basically almost every pagan religion had a trinity and even Plato himself had one, called the divine trinity. His concept of God later called ” The Good” by his disciples was represented triadically by Plato, also Aristotle mentioned the number three as unique and Arthur Weigall, in his book The Paganism in Our Christianity on page 198 gives a brief history of the trinity doctrine, saying:
“In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: ‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity.’
The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth. The Hindu trinity of Brahman, Siva, and Vishnu is another of the many and widespread instances of this theological conception. The Apostles’ Creed, which is the earliest of the formulated articles of Christian faith, does not mention it.
The words “trinity,” “triune,” “God-man,” “first person,” “second person,” “third person,” “three persons,” do not appear anywhere in the inspired text of either Catholic or Protestant Bibles. Nowhere in the Bible do we find terms such as “God the Son,” or “God the Holy Spirit,” but rather we read “the Son of God,” “the spirit of God,” or just “holy spirit.” Nowhere in Scripture is God revealed as three persons, but always as one God. Now if the very words that are necessary to express the doctrine of the trinity do not appear in the Holy Scriptures, how can we suppose the doctrine to be found or taught therein? Impossible.
There is no difference wether the Trinity worshiped is Horus, Isis and Osiris or Father Son Holy Spirit, they are both wrong, and only difference with the second one is that it is ”claimed” to be christian and true, but the pagans also claimed that their previous triads were true also. One thing to remember are the words of Jesus, He said..my kingdom is no part of the world, john 17, and He said they persecuted me, they will persecute you also, now if we expect the world to hate us and persecute us, how could the world so suddenly, 313 ad, and also the Emperor of Rome himself, one of the emperors of an empire of which virtually every previous emperor had persecuted christians come to suppossedly accept christianity? Th
at is truly impossible, UNLESS , in the 300 years since Christ, the christianity of Constantine’s time was not the christianity of the time of Jesus and the Apostles which the Romans so vehemently opposed, but a ”paganized christianity” filled with a multitude of religious errors and pagan customs which is exactly what christianity had become by the time of Constantine. I have a lot more info on this subject and its origin but i will not post unless someone wants me to post them for their learning and knowledge. I have also noticed that when given the numerous and countless verses showing clearly the subjection of the Son to the Father, many so-called Christians simply reject them, and in return brand you a ”heretic” when you simply quote the truths of the bible. Now, i am not sure wether that is because they are mislead by satan or because they simply do not want to accept the truth, but i sincerely hope they come to realize that without ”accurate” knowledge of the truth, they will not inherit eternal life, as Jesus said in John 17:3…this means eternal life, their taking in ACCURATE knowledge of YOU, the ONLY True GOD, and the One you SENT FORTH, Jesus Christ.
John 1:1 says the Word was God. Does that mean that Jesus is God because he is the Word?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.
First when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.
Secondly, we see In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (THE). The definite article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (e.g., the Word, The God.), yet is absent in the last mention of God. Read on because this can be significant as you are about to find out.
Greek sentence construction affirms that if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (THE) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this is a game changer. Scholars see the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but haven’t made the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature or definite and qualitative. Don’t worry if this makes no sense to you. It will.
Look at the difference between these two sentences.
1) You are an angel
2) You are THE angel.Notice how the first one is using the word angel in a qualitative way while the second is definite. Hence the term ‘definite article’.
In John 1:1, all instances of the word ‘God” are preceded by the definite article ‘THE’, except the last one.
So it literally says:
John1:1
a) In the beginning was THE God.
b) THE Word was with THE God
c) And THE Word was god.Why is the last word not capitalised? Where Greek uses the definite article in English we capitalise the word. e.g., the god = God.
So it is grammatically correct to read John 1:1c with a qualitative sense rather reading it as identifying the Word as God himself. It is not only grammatically correct to read it this way, it is also theologically correct because if we read it as THE Theos, then that would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God even to the exclusion of the Father. Now we have two good reasons for reading the last word ‘god/theos’ as qualitative and not as THE God or God.
In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have a preceding definite article which is true, however looking at the verse contextually, we understand that there is clearly two being spoken of, i.e., one God and one called the Word with is clearly another who is next to God and is not that God he is with.
Let’s look at Adam and Eve as an example of two beings that were with each other. Before I give an example, it is important for you at this point to understand that the Hebrew word for ‘man’ is ‘adam’. This means that qualitatively, Adam and Eve are both adam. This is similar to the word theos which is translated as the ‘God’ & god. The absence of the definite article can qualify just as the word adam qualifies. As I said before, in English we use capitals to denote when being definite. So the difference between ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’ is that Adam refers to a specific man called Adam while the latter could refer to him as well as Eve and any other member of mankind. This is clearly stated in scripture in Genesis 1:27:
So God created man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
The word for man is adam, so it says: God created ‘adam’ male and female. So saying that ‘Eve is adam’ is a true saying.
In English, If I said “John is the man”, then I am identifying John as a definite and particular person of the human race. But if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” Can you see the difference now?
To understand how the article can make a big difference to a piece of text, look at this example. Have a guess as to which one is correct.
a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was THE mana) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was manThe correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or man. Look at the next example:
a) Tools were used by man.
b) Tools were used by the man.See how the first example is talking about mankind whereas the second example is talking of a specific man.
In other words the word ‘man’ can be used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not always used to identify a particular person and it can even refer to more than one person.
Now let’s have a look at the above example, but using Adam and Eve instead. Notice in English that we do not have the definite article preceding Adam or Eve, because capitalising both Adam and Eve leads us to view these words in a definite sense, the same way that Greek requires the definite article. Essentially THE adam/man in Greek is the same as Adam in English.
a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was Adama) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was adamNotice that the second example is still the correct one.
To further understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he had the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek as you have probably guessed, but most translators deem it necessary to add the indefinite article “a” to complete the thought in English even though it is not present in Greek or any Greek. Greek has no indefinite articles, (a,an).
So Judas wasn’t Satan himself, rather he was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not actually saying that Judas was the Devil himself. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil or demon, he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, who is Satan. So it is with John 1:1c.
The Logos was God has no definite article. It is really saying, The Logos was god. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate John 1:1 as “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”
So what kind of being is Jesus then if the Word was theos (without the definite article)? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he must be a divine being if Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. In other words he is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but THE image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. He is all these things, but he is not THE God that he is the son of. That God is exclusively the Father and there are many scriptures to prove that which we will look at later in this page.
Many think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to try and prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.
In fact, the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by the article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to describe or qualify.
Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. NOTE: this is not an endorsement with all that these authors have written, rather I am appealing to their view regarding John 1:1.
One prominent scholar called Origen is sometimes quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes. However, they avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D and was a noted expert in Koine Greek.
“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two being mentioned (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’. They are not presented as two coequal persons in a Binity or Trinity. What we really have is one with the character of THEOS who is with TON THEOS (the God), thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique however. He/it is identified further in the gospel as “a son from a father, begotten, as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “theos.” Either there were two equal Gods or persons called God, or it is talking about a godlike one that is with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the last view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.
So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.
John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity Doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation, rather it is another foundation.
So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). However, in order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:
“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James MoffattSo the idea that Jesus Christ is God is often and supposedly supported by John 1:1. However the rest of John’s Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. The New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”
We must also remember that the judges of Israel were called gods/theos. This doesn’t mean that they were part of God or part of the Trinity, it just means that they had authority given to them by God. It is also written that we can partake of divine nature, so that could also make us divine just as partaking in flesh makes us man. It must be noted though, that being divine or partaking in divine nature is different to actually being the Divine himself.
Also see John 10:34-35:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.We humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, yet we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:18) (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”
Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. We must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not just a man like us. Yes he partook of flesh and came as a man like us, but he also existed in the form of God as the Word or Logos. We are told that he resides between God and Man and as a man he is our mediator to God. It was indeed the Word that became flesh. God did not become flesh, instead God resided in Christ who came in the flesh. So just like us, God can be in us who are made of flesh, but God himself did not become flesh. God is not a man and never will be a man. It was the Word who came to us as a man and it was the Word that all things were created though. See John 1:3.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.And to compliment the fact that God made all things through his Word, and that Jesus is the Word of God, even ignoring the fact that Jesus wears a title, “The Word of God” as recorded in the Book of Revelation, we are specifically told, that God created everything through Jesus Christ. See :Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.So Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called God’s only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him too. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator. Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God. So what does it mean when it says ‘beginning’? The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is ‘arche’ and this word means the following:
1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demonsBelow I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or ‘arche’ is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.
Foot Note from the Greatest Hebrew to English Translation ever..;o)
From (The Book Of Yahweh The Holy Scriptures)
Yahchanan ( Hebrew which means Yahweh is Merciful )
English John 1:1-5
1: In the beginning was the PLAN of Yahweh and the PLAN was with Yahweh, and the PLAN was Yahweh’s.
2: The same PLAN was in the beginning with Yahweh.
3: All things were done according to it, and without it
nothing was done , that was done.
4: In this PLAN was life, and that life was the light to mankind.
5: Now that light shines in the darkness, but the darkness does not take hold of it.PLAN: Translated from the Greek LOGOS- meaning something said including the thoughts; by implication: a topic or subject of set discourse; also reasoning with the mental faculties, and motive. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, Page 380-382. This Greek word LOGOS shows to be itself the Greek translation of the ORIGINAL Hebrew word DABAR, which means: Yahweh’s revealed will….His WHOLE PLAN and purpose for mankind. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 4, Page 870-871.
To view this page of the Scriptures go to
Iyyob
Does anyone else agree that the Logos means the Plan?
I think that the Word is a person and the Word was divine. In other words the Word had the nature of God and then he emptied himself of that nature to partake of the human nature and was given it back when he was raised from the dead.
I saw on a Forum once where people were debating the word Logos, and one guy said that the closest interpretation in English was soul. The others in that Forum thought it was controversial, but then later saw his reasoning as sound. If I can find it, I will link to it.
Does anyone else have an opinion, and if so please explain why. I am interested in finding out as much as possible regarding the word "Logos".
Thought I would bring this post to the front.
I am still seeking information regarding the Logos and it's meaning.
Logos is translated as Word, and can mean a thought and/spoke word. Some say expression, even soul.
Was/is the Logos a person in his own right?
Was/is the Logos ever once just contained within God?
Is Jesus still the Logos?Hi t8,
There many visions of the Logos in the Word.1. In the beginning as spirit only separate from the Father.
2. Incarnate and born as the Son of Man conceived of the Holy Spirit. In this state He was worshipped by the Astrologers.
3. His childhood. He was a voracious student of the OT such that by age 12 he astounded the experts.
4. His Baptism in water and empowerment for ministry by baptism in the Holy Spirit. He did no works of God prior to this time as far as we know.
5. His death on the cross and release from His weak natural body.
6. His return to earth in His new resurrected body.This seemed like our body to look at as the disciples recognised him and he ate with them but he had amazing new abilities to pass through walls and appear and disappear.
7. His return to heaven in that body. There is no mention of Him returning to His original condition as spirit only in heaven as far as I know.I would like to hear more from others on these things as I admit my ignorance.
Of course I missed out Jesus the carpenter, not noted to be different from the other members of His family and living in Capernaum
Hi ,
John the Baptist was known to be born before Jesus as Mary was told by the angel the conception of Jesus that Elizabeth was already 6 months pregnant.[Lk 1.38]
But John the baptist spoke thus of Jesus
“This was He of whom I said 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I BECAUSE HE EXISTED BEFORE ME”..as the Logos,in the beginning ,with the Father.
cont.
so when Jesus said to the Jews
“Truly ,truly I say unto you. Before Abraham was born ,I AM”
he was simply stating the truth, not saying He was the Father but he existed in the beginning with the Father.hey guys,
i can't say i've ever looked deeply into a definition of logos – i guess i've always just understood it to mean the spoken word… my greek's a bit rusty – but “logarithm” comes from the greek word logos, meaning reason or proportion… of course word meanings can change significantly over time, but the “reason” of god, i suppose could also be interpreted the “logic” of god… which i guess is similar to a plan… also, logarithms are used to abridge arithmetical calculations… so, in this sense we could say that the logos is kind of “bridge” to god… but it's stretching the concept a bit… hehehe…
interestingly, i was talking to a rabbai from the reform jews a couple of weeks ago, and he interpretes the “spirit” (rahaw in the hebrew i think) as the “intent” of god… so if jesus is the word (?plan) of god, and the holy spirit is the intent of god, i guess we could conclude that god has made his word and his will known to us… all purely philosophical conjecture though…
cheers,
nate.
oh, i thought we were talking about possible variations of the translation of logos…
word meanings change over time, eg. nice:
pleasant (ad2000)
uninteresting (ad1800)
ignorant (ad1600)of course, these are just “accepted” interpretations, i know that “nice” is also a skate term roughly equatable to “gnarly”… it is also a term sometimes used to mean “plain” – “oh, she's nice, i guess.”
cheers,
nate.
Hi nate,
The funny thing to me is that the bible is so easy. The text is so smooth and logical and so coherent. And the old testament is no dfferent to the new and they flow into one another and confirm one another. If you ever read the mormon bible you will see the difference. It lacks that flowing quality. Also there are repeats of whole sections of the OT tacked in amongst the book of mormon. It is full of indecision and disparity. It does not have the essence of love in it-the Spirit of God. The books of Shakespeare too are much less understandable than the bible.The teachings of the old church writers such as Origen or Clement also have the clarity of truth showing God at work in the writers.But knowledge of the bible is just vanity if the teachings do not bring about the changes in our life that show God at work. The fruit of the Spirit is that evidence and I know my life still needs much changing. I do not want to be just a clanging cymbal.
I am not yet much use as a servant but the reason I write is to try and be of some use to God's people investing my coin in God's bank so that He may gain the interest. Words are still just words if our actions are yet lacking love and mercy as I know that is really what the master wants of all of us.
I hold to the belief that Christ was the Logos that was with God in the beginning. I see the meaning of Logos as the expression, the Word, maybe even the image of God. I think that the Logos was a person or a life with his own will seperate to that of the Father, but choosing the Fathers will.
I quite like the way Tatian (165 A.D) put it.
“For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him”.
Agree? Disagree? Why?
Hi t8,
We know that Jesus pre-existed his human life as the “reflection of the Father's Glory and exact representation of the Father's being” from Heb 1, Jn 1 and 1Jn 1.as well as Ps 2 and others.
We know from Phil 2 .6 that in that state he was separate and had choices. He was perfect and perfectly in submission then and always.
He was sent into the world [Jn3. 17]and chose obedience at every step.[Jn 5.19]
He had his own will on earth too as shown in Jn 5.17 and 21.and even in the Garden of Gethsemene he had to submit his will to that of the Father.
God created everything through Jesus [Heb 1 ,Jn 1 etc] and so the Word [Logos] was the contact point with earth for the Father who is Spirit.
The sword of the Spirit is the spoken Word or Rhema and Jesus is seen with the sword in his mouth[rev 2 and 19]Hi Adam,
Jn 14..6 ” I am the way ,the truth and the LIFE”
11.25 ” I am the resurrection and the LIFE”
6.35 ” I am the bread of LIFE”
Acts 3.15″ ..but put to death the Prince of LIFE”Jn 1.4″.. In him was LIFE and Life for the light of men”
1Jn.1 “…we speak of the word of LIFE [this LIFE became visible , we have seen and bear witness to it and we proclaim to you the eternal LIFE that was present to the Father and became visible to us]So was Jesus as spirit and soul in heaven prior to his appearance in a body? Or did he have a heavenly body and does only the Father exist as Spirit only? Do angels have heavenly bodies? They do appear and disappear on earth. 1Cor 15 .40 says “there are heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies” so my guess is that Jesus and the Angels had heavenly bodies which Jesus gave up but reassumed after his resurrection but I would like other's views.
The other sites you take us to in your other post ,Adam, seem to have questionable doctrines. Do you claim these as your own?
I know that there are some who believe that Jesus/Yahshua didn't exist before he partook of flesh. I have even read some writings that argue this view. But I remain unconvinced. It seemed to me that these writers go to great lengths to say that a spade isn't a spade.
Using cultural differences these arguments suggest that the Hebrew culture often speaks of something that will exist in the future as if it were now. This may be true to a degree, but I cannot fathom all the scriptures that talk of Christ as pre-existing, to be interpretted this way.
Scripture seems clear when it says that the Logos became flesh and dwelt with us. It also states that the Logos was WITH God in the beginning, before creation.
The Book of John is not alone in this teaching. You will find it throughout the NT. It is even in the OT although not as prolific.
I would like to talk about this in greater depth, but I usually get a link to visit instead. I have read them but remain unconvinced.
How about some dialogue on these views? After all, we should always be prepared to give an answer to what we believe. It is easy to let a denomination, creed or organisation do the thinking for us, but does that lead us to truth.
To those who believe this to be so, why is the Logos not a who?
How can the Logos be with God, if the Logos is a thought inside God (as some say).
If the Logos is an expression, then surely this expression existed seperate or different to God, with unity of will and spirit?
Is not the Logos written of in the Book of John, not the same image of God written in other scriptures?I look forward to any possible dialogue regarding the Logos.
hey t8, etc…
i'm a bit lazy today, otherwise i'd check it out for myself – but does anyone other than john call jesus the logos?
it occurs to me that perhaps john was using this word as an expression of some quality of jesus… or of the message he brought (or was)…
anyway, just a thought…
cheers,
nate.
Yes the word logos appears in nearly all NT books, but which ones are talking about Christ I do not know.
I should look at these other scriptures and determine which ones are preceeded with a definite article (in Greek). In English, it appears that most have the definite article, but that is done by the translators to make it readable in English.
For times sake, I will take 1 scripture at random. 1 Timothy 5:17 (NIV)
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.1 Timothy 5:17 (KJV)
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.In the Greek the article (the) is not present before the word 'logos' in 1 Timothy 5:17, therefore defining it not as a person. But in John 1:1 the word Logos is preceeded with an article. An article is used when talking about a person. E.g in Greek, 'Jesus' is preceeded with the, i.e. 'the Jesus'.
So I would like to look at the scriptures that use an article and the ones that do not, to see if a pattern emerges. I would expect to find that the ones with an article are talking about Christ and the ones without to be talking about the written word. But I will see what emerges and will not let my pre-defined belief get in the way of truth.
Should be an interesting answer, but I will need time to look though the verses.
hey t8,
sound like a good plan… tell us how you go… like i said, i have an idea that john was the onle one to use logos as a name for jesus… but i haven't the evidence to back that up, so maybe you'll be able to answer that for me…
just a note though – i think that perhaps logos without the definite article would be more appropriate to “message” than “written word”… it occurs to me that if they were talking about the written word, they would use “rhema”… but i'm open to correction…
cheers,
nate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
