Need a hand here folks: The Word?

[Imagican]

I am rather pressed for time right now and don't have time to do an extensive study of this matter. I am hoping that some of you may be able to help.

The question is concerning The Word. I am looking for direct scriptural reference to Christ BEING The Word. If anyone can direct me to said scripture I would be greatly appreciative.

Like I said, I am able to read but don't have the time, right now, to do an adequate study.

Thanks,

MEC

 

[unred typo]

I am rather pressed for time right now and don't have time to do an extensive study of this matter. I am hoping that some of you may be able to help.

The question is concerning The Word. I am looking for direct scriptural reference to Christ BEING The Word. If anyone can direct me to said scripture I would be greatly appreciative.

Like I said, I am able to read but don't have the time, right now, to do an adequate study.

Thanks,

MEC

John 1:14
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.

 

[unred typo]

Did this help, MEC? :-?

 

[unred typo]

O h I see. I stepped into a hornet’s nest that I generally avoid: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30713&start=60 ...The old trinity thing.
I agree with what you have written here, MEC, in answer to devekut’s questions, “Who, theologically, do you believe Christ to be? Is He God? And if so, in what sense?†when you wrote:

EXACTLY 'who' Christ STATED that He IS; the Son of God. He is CERTAINLY a 'part' of the Godhead. But that is STILL a mystery to us so far as the EXACT relationship of Christ to God other than that HE IS The Son of God.

And this 'idea' of God the Son has NEVER been offered through scripture.

I know, too, that somewhere it is stated that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. Yup…here:

2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

I don’t feel the trinity is the answer to the problem of putting an exact definition on the relationship between the Father and the son… an answer shouldn’t be more confusing than the question.

 

[Imagican]

Did this help, MEC? :-?

Yes it did. Haven't been able to 'get back' or I would have responded sooner.

Thanks

MEC

 

[Imagican]

O h I see. I stepped into a hornet’s nest that I generally avoid: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30713&start=60 ...The old trinity thing.
I agree with what you have written here, MEC, in answer to devekut’s questions, “Who, theologically, do you believe Christ to be? Is He God? And if so, in what sense?†when you wrote:

EXACTLY 'who' Christ STATED that He IS; the Son of God. He is CERTAINLY a 'part' of the Godhead. But that is STILL a mystery to us so far as the EXACT relationship of Christ to God other than that HE IS The Son of God.

And this 'idea' of God the Son has NEVER been offered through scripture.

I know, too, that somewhere it is stated that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. Yup…here:

2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

I don’t feel the trinity is the answer to the problem of putting an exact definition on the relationship between the Father and the son… an answer shouldn’t be more confusing than the question.

Ah, 'good one'. And unread. I don't believe that we are ABLE to 'believe' that God is NOT 'in' Christ.

What I find difficult to understand, (or accept), is that Jesus Christ IS God Himself.

Back to my original question............

I had mORE time than I thought. After a 'relatively' extensive study, I have found that there are only EIGHT references of Christ TO The Word, (if one were to ACCEPT that 'The Word' IS in fact a 'reference' to Christ Himself), and of these EIGHT; all of them offered in the writtings of John.

I find it a 'bit odd'. Having never actually done a 'study' of the use of 'The Word', imagine how strange that I found this term ONLY used in the writtings of 'one man'. Kinda makes ya go hmmmmm, don't it?

Not that I am offering that John offered ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH. What I will offer is that IF this 'name' was as IMPORTANT as the CC has taught, then WHY didn't ANY other apostle use it? I mean IF The Word IS Jesus Christ, wouldn't the OTHER apostles been AWARE of this FACT? And let me state again, " I DO NOT BELIEVE that John offered ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE TRUTH".

So, if there is 'something WRONG' with this interpretation, it wouldn't have been what was OFFERED by John, it would be in the 'understanding of the those who read it'. And we KNOW that the CC was responsible for the 'interpretation' of The Bible. And it was 'they' that introduced this 'capital W' in The Word. And it even makes it 'stand out MORE' when we realize that there are HUNDREDS of references to the word throughout the NT, but only in EIGHT places is it capitalized to indicate a 'personal name'. Guess WHO decided to capitalize these eight? And I will leave it to YOU to determine WHY they decided to capitalize ONLY these eight.

I once read a reply offered by 'someone' and I can't remember who, (maybe someone could help me out here), explained a LOT about the NT from the perspective of the OT, (do remember that the apostles WERE Jews FIRST, before becoming Christian Jews). And in his explanation he offered that the Jews had an 'understanding of AGENCY'. And in this understanding there was possible, the 'agency' to be bestowed along with the POWER that God chose to instill, in that which He chose to 'represent Him'. It made a lot of sense. Especially HERE when we discuss The Word.

For John WELL knew the NAME of Jesus Christ. Well KNEW God His Father. And, well, it just seems a bit STRANGE that John would come along with this 'NEW NAME' for Christ if this IS what he actually offered.

For we see MANY MANY instances AFTER John 1 in which the word 'word' is used as a 'discription' of what Christ OFFERED, without it actually being a referece to Christ Himself, (a NAME).

If this IS the case, then the use of Word may well be what I have offered over and over. Not Christ HIMSELF, but the Word which He brought to mankind. And we KNOW that the word of God IS that which was GIVEN HIM by The Father.

So, as far as 'trinity' is concerned, this offers NO proof whatsoever that Christ IS God. In fact, it shows a 'clear' distinction of the TWO being of the same purpose, but of difference essence. A debate that has raged for almost two thousand years over what was "INTRODUCED" into Christianity by the Eastern folks MOSTLY located in Rome. For history PLAINLY shows that this 'trinity' was NOT offered 'in the beginning' but WELL after the apostles were DEAD and gone.

Of course, the CC teaches that there are STILL apostles, (the CC and a FEW protestant denoms), but the indication from The Word is that the apostles were for a 'time' and for a 'purpose'. And that time is past and the purpose fulfilled.

MEC

 

[cyberjosh]

MEC,

It is justifiable that the "Word" (Logos) is written with a capital W in the first verses of John because it is personified, just as ruach/pneuma (spirit) is captialized when refering to the Holy Spirit. And Logos as the "Word" personified is akin to the "Wisdom" (said also to be in the beginning) as personified in Proverbs (which seems also to be decribing Christ).

You also said:

For John WELL knew the NAME of Jesus Christ. Well KNEW God His Father. And, well, it just seems a bit STRANGE that John would come along with this 'NEW NAME' for Christ if this IS what he actually offered.

Well you seemed to have missed something else John said of the Logos. John clearly says in connection with Jesus what his name is: "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word [Logos] of God. " (Revelation 19:13)

It's pretty undeniable that when John speaks of the Logos as being God in the beginning in his Gospel that he is refering to Jesus.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Imagican]

So Cyber,

Am I to assume from what you have offered that you 'believe' Christ to BE none other than; God Himself? Not a 'part' of God, or the Son of God, but God Himself?

That when Christ offered all that He did concerning His relationship to the Father; that a 'personal' interpretation OF what John stated transends ALL that Christ offered and inposes in it's stead an interpretation that would negate His Words?

For to 'believe' that Christ IS God is akin to a response that Christ IS The Father. And why would we be offered all that we were so far as 'the Son', the 'Lamb of God', etc, etc, etc, if indeed it's as simple as 'Christ IS God'?

It is quite obvious that 'trinity' makes one alter what has been offered for the sake of 'doctrine'. Forcing one to DENY all other possibilities for the sake of 'doctrine'. And when we study the history of 'trinity' we then see that this doctrine has no bearing on what was taught by Christ and the apostles but simply a 'concept' dreamed up by individuals HUNDREDS of years AFTER the death of Christ AND His apostles. A 'concept' that literally altered the meaning behind MOST of what was offered to start with. For this doctrine, and those that imposed it upon organized Christianity, taught more 'hate' than love. Taught an 'idea' that those that accept it are able to judge others that DO NOT. Taught MUCH that is contradictory to The Word itself.

And John DID NOT offer a 'capitalized W' in his gospel. That was created by the SAME people that 'created trinity'. And obvious placed there to indicate 'proof' of their 'concept'.

And Cyber, why do you suppose that NO OTHER apostle offered ANY inkling of this 'concept'? NO other apostle used The Word as a 'specific' NAME' for Christ. Were the rest of them 'ignorant' of this? Was it TRULY the intent of John to offer this 'interpretation' or was the interpretation CREATED by the CC in order to attempt to 'sway' those that read it in a 'particular' understanding? And, what PROOF or 'reason' do we have to BELIEVE their interpretation over that which was actually stated?

For history shows that there were MANY that refuted this 'interpretation'. Choosing instead to simply follow what was offered rather than attempt a 'conceptualization' of the Words offered into 'something' that 'reeks' of the 'philosophy of man' rather than the purity of wisdom as offered by God Himself.

And one more question: Why do you suppose that God HID Himself, (His TRUE identity), from HIs CHOSEN people for THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of years?

MEC

 

[RadicalReformer]

"Son of" - means simply to identify with.

Son of God means identify/indentity with God.

Son of man means identify/indenity with man.

 

[mutzrein]

Hi MEC

Do you not recall my explanation for 'the word' which I have made in times past on this forum?

 

[Imagican]

Hi MEC

Do you not recall my explanation for 'the word' which I have made in times past on this forum?

Mutz,

It's been 'a while'. I do remember discussions, but not exactly it was that you offered. But PLEASE, by all means, if you are able to offer a 'better understanding' I would certainly be interested. And not only myself, but it may be of great benefit to others as well.

MEC

 

[DanR]

'word' is the most suitable translation for the Greek 'logos', which has a wealth of meanings. The reasons for John's favouring this term for describing Christ would be hard to determine with any certainty, though it has been the subject of countless treatises and speculation over the centuries.

I suppose it's because of this very wealth of historical meanings, classical and Koine, of 'logos': word, speech, story, matter, account, report, etc. that he chose it. All these definitions paint a full picture of both Christ, and the Gospel account itself: it melds Christ, and his nature and purpose and the very Gospel itself into an organic whole.

Or perhaps it resonates with something similar in his Galilean Aramaic dialect, who knows?

Capitalization is the least of the 'mysteries', even apart from the reference to Divinity. 'Word' here, in context, refers to a person, and John is using 'Word' in the sense of a name of someone.

Yes, it must have been capitalized, in a sense, by the early Greek writers, since in that era of manuscript production capital letters (called 'uncials') were used exclusively. So that the Gospel of John would have looked something like this, if Latin characters had have been used:

"EN ARCHE EN 'O LOGOS, KAI 'O LOGOS EN PROS TON THEON..."

This can be conveniently seen in Bodmer papyrus p75, the oldest extant MS of the Gospel of John:

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap75.html

--Dan

 

[cyberjosh]

That's an interesting site Dan. I've been there in the past, about a year or two ago by now, when I first started doing indepth studies of original Greek manuscripts. There are many other useful links on that site.

P.S. Heh, I just remembered I kept on getting frustrated because I couldn't figure out what "TON" meant, because it wasn't listed in any Greek Lexicon, until I figured out it is an article, which here does not even translate, but it if I remeber correctly is a definite article meaning "the", thus "THE God" (TON THEON).

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Following up on the original Greek of John 1:1-3, a literal translation would look like:

1. En arche en ho - In the beginning was the
logos kai ho logos en - Word and the Word was
pros ton Theon - with the God
kai Theos en ho logos - and God was the Word.
2. Houtos en en arche - The same was in the beginning
pros ton Theon - with the God.3. Panta di'autou - All things through Him
egeneto, kai choris autou - became, and without Him
egeneto oude en, - became not one thing,
ho gegonen - which has become.

http://www.crossandthrone.com/articles/the-word-was-god
(That site also defends the idea that the Logos was indeed God, based on the Greek)

 

[Imagican]

Cyber,

If you read what you just offered it is EXACTLY what I have been offering. The ONLY difference is that you have chosen to insert Christ in the place of Word.

For we KNOW that that; "in the beginning WAS the Word. For God SPOKE existence INTO 'being'. So Logos WOULD have been God's Word. And the next line explains it. For without HIM, (you say that this is in reference to Christ), but if you READ it, it is STILL refering to God. So far as we know Christ was created in the SAME manner as God created EVERYTHING else.

How is it that the Hebrews and Jews KNEW God but DIDN' T know Christ. If Christ was the CREATOR, then the Hebrews and Jews would MOST CERTAINLY KNOWN CHRIST. Regardless of a misinterpretation of John, (even if you BELIEVE that The Word IS Christ), then HOW could you ignore the question that I have posed here and choose to 'believe' that God's chosen People DIDN'T even KNOW 'who' God WAS/IS?

And it's easy for interpreters to LEAD one in the 'direction' that THEY CHOOSE. For the TRUTH is, that TEN different interpreters could come up with TEN 'different' interpretations of the EXACT SAME ancient writting.

But we HAVE now established that the CAPITAL WAS added by the translaters. I thank you for the confirmation of this information for there have been many that didn't seem to understand the 'significance' of this. Those that had ALREADY established a 'trinity' ADDED this capital when they translated the original language into English. And why do you suppose that they ONLY capitalized it EIGHT times in the ENTIRETY of the NT? Because they stratigically opted on these eight to attempt to POINT to the concept of 'trinity'. And, if they had capitalized it in MORE places, it would have been APPARENT that this was NOT 'just another name for Christ', but EXACTLY what was offered in its meaning: The Word of God PERIOD. That which God wished to offer to mankind THROUGH His Word.

And the FACT still hasn't been addressed that Christ Himself offered that the words that he spoke were NOT HIS OWN, but GIVEN HIM by The Father. This in itself PROVES, (if you believe Christ over the teachings of men), that The Word was NOT EVEN POSSESSED by Christ, much less WAS He The Word. For the Word was God's Word that was 'given' to Christ, (the indication of 'given' would imply TAUGHT).

Guys, this is only complicated by the belief in 'trinity'. For without this 'concept' it IS EASY to read and understand what is offered. But add 'trinity' and it becomes so complex that one is forced to 'make up' an understanding of it that practically NO TWO people can agree upon completely. And this offering CONTRADICTION to the statement concerning the SIMPLICITY that IS Christ Jesus. Christ BEING The Son and then 'trinity' offering that He IS God makes NOTHING about Christ SIMPLE to 'understand'. Yet we have also been told that the wise of this world would be UNABLE to understand the SIMPLICITY THAT IS CHRIST JESUS. Don't forget that Christ came for those that are LIKE CHILDREN WILL INHERIT...... A child could COMPLETELY understand the confession of Christ Himself that He IS The Son of God. but attempt to explain to a 'child' the concept of 'trinity' and watch the confusion on their face.

MEC

 

[cyberjosh]

For we KNOW that that; "in the beginning WAS the Word. For God SPOKE existence INTO 'being'. So Logos WOULD have been God's Word. And the next line explains it. For without HIM, (you say that this is in reference to Christ), but if you READ it, it is STILL refering to God. So far as we know Christ was created in the SAME manner as God created EVERYTHING else.

The "HIM" is a reference to the Logos, which is also God. Look at the Greek.

But we HAVE now established that the CAPITAL WAS added by the translaters. I thank you for the confirmation of this information for there have been many that didn't seem to understand the 'significance' of this.

No we HAVEN'T established that. I already told you that the Logos is personified, and anything that is personified is capitalized as it has a character, a being, a person thus acts as a name or title. Plus I already showed you where in Revelation John says His name is the Logos, and names are always capitalized. According to your logic God (theon) shouldn't be capitalized either. Infact if we really think about it the distintion between capital 'G' in God (which is a title BTW not a proper name) and lower case 'g' in gods coming from the same word 'elohim' (in the OT) shouldn't be there either, God should just be lower case 'god' I guess. And while we're at it lets just concede that we don't need to capitalize a single darn word in the whole Bible.

 

[Imagican]

Ok Cyber,

WHO personified the Logos? John or those that translated John? For what I read is Word NOT 'Christ' or anything other than Word. And Logos is used MANY times throughout the Bible where it is NOT capitalized. Now, WHO decided that this 'Logos' was a 'personal name' rather than simply the Word, (Logos), of God?

MEC

 

[Imagican]

And Cyber, the capitalization is only a 'clue' to what I am talking about. I have no problem with God being capitalized so long as it refers to the Creator. For it is completely understandable that this IS personalized so far as 'title' to you and NAME to me.

When Christ was here on Earth, was He TOTALLY God, or did God still exist in heaven while Christ was here on Earth?

MEC

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

So, MEC, what do you think it means?

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made....

...Jhn 1:14 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.

You spoke of things that make you go Hmmmmm.
The same chapter speaks of Him being the light. The Lamb of God. The Son of God. And also says that John the Baptist saw the Spirit descending on Him. By the way, that reminds me of a thread I started long, long ago. I believe it was "God, The Holy Spirit". We discussed all of the different terms used. The Spirit of God. The Spirit of Christ. The Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit. Etc, etc.
If I can find it, I will bump it up, and we can continue the great "Trinity Debate"...til Kingdom come. :-D

**edit** found it. bumped it.

 

[cyberjosh]

WHO personified the Logos?

John did, obviously. When the said the Logos was God that is a personification, and identification. I have a question: what then do you think the Logos had to do with Christ in the flesh (vs. 14) if the the Logos is not Christ himself? Was the Logos just a mystical 'part' of Christ like the Gnostics thought?