- Apr 2, 2003
The Word become flesh is Jesus. John makes that very plain.So the word become flesh is Jesus, right?Free said:I should add that further support is found in verse 14:
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)
So Jesus become flesh is Jesus, right?
Again, this shows you really do not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. Your whole argument here completely ignores what John states from the very first verse: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It ignores the very context which I have given.Asyncritus said:And he is right to do so. All the word of God had promised, prophesied, intended came into being, and had a beginning as you rightly say above.Free said:Here, when John says "the Word became flesh," he uses the Greek egeneto, which speaks of a coming into existence, a point of origin.
When was that?
In Mary's womb, is one response to that. When He was conceived, is another.
But you don't accept that He was conceived, really, as I have pointed out on several occasions.
And you have yet another problem, don't you?
"Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee" says Psalm 2.
Which day was that? Seems obvious that John is referring to that day, when he says that the word became flesh. Therefore there was a particular day when that happened.
So all this pre-existence thing is somewhat dubious on the strength of that one verse.
The main problem, which continually comes up with anti-trinitarians, is that one finds such a verse and thinks it proves the Trinity wrong or somehow puts it into question. What you are doing is pitting Scripture against itself in such a way that one must prevail over the other. The doctrine of the Trinity takes into account all that Scripture states without causing those verses which clearly speak of the humanity of Christ to prevail over those which clearly speak of his deity, and vice versa. We must accept both his humanity and his deity, as the Bible clearly reveals to us is the case.
To say that verses which speak of Christ's humanity means that he is only a creature and not God is to do violence to Scripture, the person of Christ and the being of God. It is no different than if one was to argue that those verses which clearly speak of Christ's deity means that he is only God and not a man, but that is to do the same violence.
So, no, it does not put the Son's eternal preexistence into any doubt.
The Son, the Word, has always existed as God but then entered into time as the God-man, Jesus. This is what John is clearly and plainly showing.Asyncritus said:Suppose that at one point in time 'all things' came into existence (egeneto).Free said:Incidentally, this is the very word he uses in verse 3 in speaking of "all things" being "made through him." It is very significant that John only uses en of the Word in the first thirteen verses and uses egeneto of everything else. In verse 14 then it becomes clear why he uses egeneto of the Word. (Adapted from White's The Forgotten Trinity and M. R. Vincent's Word Studies).
Then logically, at one point in time Jesus came into existence too (egeneto).
When was that? See above for answer.
It cannot be more clear that John is referring to the beginning of Creation, to Gen 1:1.Asyncritus said:Clearly, he is not.Free said:Clearly John is contrasting the eternal preexistence of the Word with the coming into being of everything else, everything that has been made.
Jesus 'came into existence'. 'All things 'came into existence' too. When?
In the 'beginning'. Of what?
And so is the Bible, when one knows how to use it properly.Asyncritus said:Wonderful things, concordances.
These are not at all relevant. Why you insist on ignoring the immediate context of John 1 and prefer to jump around Scripture is beyond me. Looking at the immediate context:Asyncritus said:On what grounds, therefore, can you claim that Jn 1 is referring to Gen 1, and not some other beginning? I could suggest a relevant few, starting with:
1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1 John 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John goes right from speaking about the Word being "in the beginning with God," to speaking of creation. It simply cannot be made more clear that John is alluding to Gen 1:1.
This is such a stretch that it really does remove all credibility regarding your understanding of Scripture and how to properly interpret it. You are going to a completely different book in an attempt to get an understanding for a word which is already very clear in the immediate context of the passage in question. That simply is not good exegetical practice, not good at all.Asyncritus said:This actually gives us a date for the beginning. Here it is:
When was that? Shortly before Jesus died and rose again. Could that be the beginning?
2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
So John is saying that Jesus had a beginning.
Equally, he tells us what the word is. "...the Word of life;"
In the beginning [whichever one that may be, but it looks from the above, that it might be the beginning of Jesus' ministry] was the Word [of life].
You are forcing a meaning on the text of John 1 which is completely unwarranted.