Jesus the Man Before John !

[LeviR]

What we are told in John 1:14 is that "the Word became flesh." "Became" is the same verb used in verse 3, egeneto ("made"), and speaks of coming into being. That is contrasted with "was," en, in speaking of the Word already existing in the beginning. That is, the coming into being of all things ever created and the Word becoming flesh (entering time), are contrasted with the continuous preexistence of the Word with God.

The Word created everything that came into being and then himself entered into time, into that creation, as the person of Jesus (John 1:1-3, 10, 14).

This is what Trinitarians teach, or should teach.

I was taught by those who claimed to be orthodox Trinitarians.
I was not told that the word became flesh but rather the word took upon Himself flesh.
I was not told that God became flesh, but rather He took on a human body as one might put on a coat.
But the language doesn’t say that.
For example, if I were to say the rabbit was made a coat. You would understand what I mean. And that is what the text is saying with reference to the word.
Trinitarians separate the word from flesh. They do it with a hyphen- God-man. Which is in direct contradiction to the text.

 

[brightfame52]

Randy

The Son who was before the world began was not a man, (flesh and blood).

Who said anything about Him being a Flesh and Blood Man ?

 

[Free]

Yes I know you disagree, but I am not really sure why despite your repeated arguments do the contrary.

Most of which you have left unaddressed despite repeated attempts to get you to address them.

1 John 1:1-3 directly calls the Word of life a that, which, and an it. It's in the KJV, NIV, ESV, and other popular versions. The passage says the Word of life is eternal life and John 1:5 calls the light an it. John 1 uses the word Light to sometimes speak of God and sometimes to speak of a thing that is given to men. The Light (God) has light (eternal life) and the light is the life of men.

In other words, God gives eternal life (a thing) to men and it was first revealed in Jesus.

Again, this is an exegetical fallacy that has been pointed out to you many times, which you have left unaddressed, and simply keep repeating as though you're saying something meaningful.

You're also contradicting earlier statements you have made, namely, that the light in John 1 is the Father. But, that was also pointed out in regards to your fallacy, since "light" is neuter, but "Father" is masculine. According to your own line of reasoning, you're calling the Father both an "it" and a "he."

Long story short, the Word is a thing that God revealed or manifested through Jesus and it was given to the disciples. It's all poetic personification.

There is no personification. You have never shown this to be the case, although you keep claiming it to be.

Closely examine John 1 and 1 John 1 and this is this case.

I have closely examined them and it absolutely is not the case. The plain and correct story is that the Word is a person, the second person of the Trinity, who was in eternal relationship with God, was God in nature, and then became flesh. This is what the rest of John's gospel is predicated on. Anything else he says of Jesus or records him saying, cannot deviate from the plain and simple fact that the Son is God in human flesh, being both truly God and truly man.

 

[LeviR]

Most of which you have left unaddressed despite repeated attempts to get you to address them.


Again, this is an exegetical fallacy that has been pointed out to you many times, which you have left unaddressed, and simply keep repeating as though you're saying something meaningful.

You're also contradicting earlier statements you have made, namely, that the light in John 1 is the Father. But, that was also pointed out in regards to your fallacy, since "light" is neuter, but "Father" is masculine. According to your own line of reasoning, you're calling the Father both an "it" and a "he."


There is no personification. You have never shown this to be the case, although you keep claiming it to be.


I have closely examined them and it absolutely is not the case. The plain and correct story is that the Word is a person, the second person of the Trinity, who was in eternal relationship with God, was God in nature, and then became flesh. This is what the rest of John's gospel is predicated on. Anything else he says of Jesus or records him saying, cannot deviate from the plain and simple fact that the Son is God in human flesh, being both truly God and truly man.

The word “word” has the same meaning throughout Scripture. It is only by adopting philosophical ideas that it means a person.
All one needs to do is examine its use throughout the N.T. To see what I’m suggesting is true.

 

[Runningman]

Most of which you have left unaddressed despite repeated attempts to get you to address them.

What do you want me to address?

Again, this is an exegetical fallacy that has been pointed out to you many times, which you have left unaddressed, and simply keep repeating as though you're saying something meaningful.

You're also contradicting earlier statements you have made, namely, that the light in John 1 is the Father. But, that was also pointed out in regards to your fallacy, since "light" is neuter, but "Father" is masculine. According to your own line of reasoning, you're calling the Father both an "it" and a "he."

This is meaningful. For example, in John 1:9 the True Light gives light to men. There are two usages of the word light. One is for God and the other is for a thing that is given to men. There is no contradiction and I am not calling God both and it and a He.

There is no personification. You have never shown this to be the case, although you keep claiming it to be.

There is more evidence for personification of the Word since 1 John 1:1-3 calls the Word of life a thing and there are no examples of a person named the Word saying or doing anything in the Old Testament.

I have closely examined them and it absolutely is not the case. The plain and correct story is that the Word is a person, the second person of the Trinity, who was in eternal relationship with God, was God in nature, and then became flesh. This is what the rest of John's gospel is predicated on. Anything else he says of Jesus or records him saying, cannot deviate from the plain and simple fact that the Son is God in human flesh, being both truly God and truly man.

I am not a Trinitarian so I don't agree with that interpretation even though it's the interpretation you personally hold as truth.

 

[Free]

The word “word” has the same meaning throughout Scripture. It is only by adopting philosophical ideas that it means a person.
All one needs to do is examine its use throughout the N.T. To see what I’m suggesting is true.

If one actually examines its use throughout the NT, there is absolutely no way to conclude that "word" has the same meaning every time. Such a claim betrays a lack of serious study. As context determines meaning, the context of John 1:1 is such that the Word is a person; it cannot be otherwise. This is supported by John writing in Rev 19:13 that Jesus's name is "The Word of God."

Thayer Definition:
1) of speech
1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
1b) what someone has said
1b1) a word
1b2) the sayings of God
1b3) decree, mandate or order
1b4) of the moral precepts given by God
1b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
1b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
1c) discourse
1c1) the act of speaking, speech
1c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
1c3) a kind or style of speaking
1c4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction
1d) doctrine, teaching
1e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
1f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
1g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
2) its use as respect to the MIND alone
2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration
2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score
2d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
2e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
2e1) reason would
2f) reason, cause, ground
3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance:
logos; from G3004; a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech: — account (7), account *(1), accounting (2), accounts (2), answer (1), appearance (1), complaint (1), exhortation *(1), have to do (1), instruction (1), length *(1), matter (4), matters (1), message (10), news (3), preaching (1), question (2), reason (2), reasonable (1), remark (1), report (1), said (1), say (1), saying (4), sayings (1), speaker (1), speech (10), statement (18), story (1), talk (1), teaching (2), thing (2), things (1), utterance (2), what he says (1), what *(1), word (179), words (61).

 

[LeviR]

If one actually examines its use throughout the NT, there is absolutely no way to conclude that "word" has the same meaning every time. Such a claim betrays a lack of serious study. As context determines meaning, the context of John 1:1 is such that the Word is a person; it cannot be otherwise. This is supported by John writing in Rev 19:13 that Jesus's name is "The Word of God."

Thayer Definition:
1) of speech
1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
1b) what someone has said
1b1) a word
1b2) the sayings of God
1b3) decree, mandate or order
1b4) of the moral precepts given by God
1b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
1b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
1c) discourse
1c1) the act of speaking, speech
1c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
1c3) a kind or style of speaking
1c4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction
1d) doctrine, teaching
1e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
1f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
1g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
2) its use as respect to the MIND alone
2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration
2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score
2d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
2e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
2e1) reason would
2f) reason, cause, ground
3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance:
logos; from G3004; a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech: — account (7), account *(1), accounting (2), accounts (2), answer (1), appearance (1), complaint (1), exhortation *(1), have to do (1), instruction (1), length *(1), matter (4), matters (1), message (10), news (3), preaching (1), question (2), reason (2), reasonable (1), remark (1), report (1), said (1), say (1), saying (4), sayings (1), speaker (1), speech (10), statement (18), story (1), talk (1), teaching (2), thing (2), things (1), utterance (2), what he says (1), what *(1), word (179), words (61).

My point is , “word” throughout the N.T. Refers to basically the same thing…..which is speech. Something said. Ideas spoken, lessens taught….such as doctrine.etc

It never refers to a person. It only refers to a person from the ideas of the philosophers.

Trinitarians have taken that idea and used it for John 1.
But the point is, you won’t find that idea anywhere else with reference to “word”.

In the context of Revelation, Jesus is the executor of God’s Word whereby what God has SPOKEN by His judgments are executed by Jesus.

 

[Vinny37]

Provided that the word incarnate is not in the Bible, and there is a word to describe incarnating in Koine Greek, it doesn't seem it's an idea that came to anyone's mind of something God wanted to divinely inspire anyone to write about in the Gospels or Letters. The concept of an incarnation is also not clearly explained or described in Scripture.

Yes it's true that if someone isn't flesh and then they become flesh then that is a picture of an incarnation, but what if there is nothing about the Word saying or doing one thing in the Old Testament? What if John wrote elsewhere, such as in 1 John 1:1-3, that the Word is not even a person at all, but rather something that was revealed or manifested in Jesus? Perhaps, then, the Word isn't a literal person, but something being personified that encamped in flesh, rather than materialized as flesh from a non-flesh state?

In systematic theology, terms are coined to encompass what are deemed to be biblical ideas, such as the term trinity, priesthood of all believers, etc. I would argue that Jhn.1:1 carries the ideas of ὁ λογος being with God [the father] and being deity [in substance], while v14 speaks of the logos manifesting as truly human—as his incarnate mode. “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the father, has made him known” (NIV: Jhn.1:18).

As to whether, say, Paul anticipated theology becoming systematised, I really cannot say, but had someone asked him I presume he would have thought it likely. He helped sow the seeds. I think we can dig deeper into the paucity of biblical data on incarnation, than you might suggest.

I liken the OT to secondary education, and the NT as tertiary education. The NT is certainly a distinct upgrade in theology and relationship. I do not argue that the OT carries the idea of incarnation, although I would argue that it did not oppose that idea, and allowed fuller meanings: eg Isaiah spoke of a betrothed wife soon to conceive by her husband, whose child as a timeclock would be represent Immanuel, for God would be seen in his helping of his ethnic people. Later, Matthew saw a deeper level of meaning to an actual virgin conception, and the actual son representing at some deeper level, God with his global people.

I suggest that [become flesh] could suggest leaving one state in favour of another (if A becomes B it is no longer A). I would also reject [materialised] as subpar: leave that to Scotty. I hold that the noncarnate son never transitioned—the deific-suicide idea of some C19 kenoticists (eg Gess). Existing terms were pre-systematic attempts to convey something new, namely the eternal noncarnate creating a carnate temporal mode. Even today some terms like pre-existing, suggest a time sequence, rather than something coming into time from beyond time-space, like a stream from an undiminished source. There is surely something of the latter in Jhn.8:58—εγω ειμι in an absolute setting, unlike the predicate settings (the door, the life, etc).

1 Jhn.1:1-3 may be put in neuters, or masculines (NLT’s whom; NRSV’s what). Some terms which are neuter (like τεκνα) hardly assert mere thingish-ness: a child is a person while a neuter, while a ship is a she but is a neuter. We link [man/he], and [humanity/it]: pronouns can take their noun’s gender. When it can, the NWT uses the English neuter for the spirit (πνευμα): [it] is grammatically justified, as in the old KJV. However to its credit the NWT used the masculine in the Paraclete Sayings, when Jesus contravened good grammar by uncouthly linking the masculine to its neuter noun, viz εκεινος. The spirit (grammatically neuter) is ontologically a person. I do not see a denial in 1 Jhn.1-3 of noncarnate personhood entering time-space as a temporal person.

 

[brightfame52]

The Lord Jesus Christ in His Mediator Being 1 Tim 2:5 as the Son of God, did delight in the sons of men [the Election of Grace] before the Creation of the World Prov 8:31

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

I believe this is linked to Pauls comment here Acts 17:26

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

The places and times of the Elect of God had been predetermined, where they would make their dwellings and the time in Human History.

Again, who are these Sons of Men in particular in Prov 8:31 ? We have stated before they are the Elect, but they also are His Members, the Church, in fact they are the members of the Church of the Firstborn which are written in Heaven Heb 12:23

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

The Lord Jesus Christ before all things, existed as the Firstborn of the Church Col 1:17-18

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

What's the Firstborn from the Dead ? This denotes His Resurrection from the dead, but not literally, for He had not yet came into the World, for it was not yet Created, and died, however, Just as He was in the Eternal Purpose slain from the foundation of the World 1 Pet 1:20, Rev 13:8 He was also from the Eternal Purpose the Firstborn from the Dead before all Creation, and the Head of the Church before all Creation.

These are the Ones the Father Loved, Chose them in His Beloved Son, they were gave to Him, those whom He was appointed Surety and Head in behalf of in the Everlasting Covenant. They are those whose Names were Written in the Lambs Book of Life, as His Bride, before the Foundation, that's why He delighted in them Prov 8:31

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

His delight was for them as a Bridegroom for His Bride Eph 5:25

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Remember also this Mystery Eph 5:31-32

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Who has more of the Love, tender passionate affection from a Man than His Wife ? Whom more in the Providence of God does God provide for a Mans delight ? Prov 5:18-19

18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

It's those He delighted in and Purposed to bring to Glory with Him Heb 2:10

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

 

[RandyK]

The concept of incarnation as Trinitarians teach it is not there.
The text says that the word was made flesh.
The idea of the language is that what the word was had become flesh.
The Trinitarian idea is that the word took upon himself flesh , like putting on a coat or a meat jacket.
The reality of the language is that the word was made flesh and not joined and not mixed with flesh as they say.

Really good point. Jesus is not a hybride Word/Flesh monstrosity! ;) I think it was Apollinarius who thought Jesus as the Word could be Jesus' human mind, whereas the human body was Jesus flesh...or something like that?

There were a number of heretical perspectives that tried to keep Deity separate from Jesus as a Man. For example, there were the Docetists, who saw God merely "appearing" as if He was a Man in Jesus.

The best way to say it is the way it was said. God's Word became Jesus, the man. He retained His Deity even as he came into existence as a man.

 

[brightfame52]

RandyK

Really good point. Jesus is not a hybride Word/Flesh monstrosity! ;)

So since you think that way, is Jesus both God and Man in One Being ?

 

[Vinny37]

I would only disagree with you and argue that Jesus is and was the Logos. I don't know how you can read anything other than that in John 1.1? Am I misunderstanding you?

I understand that the "Word" and the "Man" are 2 distinct things and should not be confused. But as you seem to be pointing out, the divine identity of Jesus is not to be confused with the necessity of his always being "Incarnate." Jesus can be God's Word prior to his Incarnation as the "Word of God," right?

This is the whole nature of God's identity as a Person and his revelation as something distinct from Him or revealed apart from Him. What He reveals has to be different from who He is as the Source of His revelation. And yet, when He reveals Himself distinctly as a Man, then He continues to relay the eternity of His Person, and not just the distinction of His revelation.

Other than that I think your points are brilliant. Thank you!

I take Jhn.1:1 to predate Christology, in the sense that huiology is the larger field of study and can be traced in time before messiahship (eg Gen.1) and into eternity. Ie, the son-eternal exists beyond the son-temporal, his permanent mode in time-space, the christ, Jesus our lord, his streaming into history.

Thus contra Arius, there was never was a time when the son was not, though a time when Christ Jesus was not. Jhn.1:14 speaks of the beginning of the stream from the logos entering time-space via incarnation, a new reality. The name to be given their child was his incarnate name, not his noncarnate name (Lk.1:31). One can trace a prophetic stream of this name to Hoshea, son of Nun (Nb.13:16), and link it to the true exodus (a big NT theme incorporating the eucharist).

The NT can link the name Jesus to a beyond-incarnation state. That’s like saying that Queen Elizabeth 2 was born on April 21, 1926 (true in a sense), or you could say that as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary—the connecting link—was born queen on February 6, 1952, the day King George 6 died. For my money, systematically Jesus is only to be used from the conception, the nonhuman logos incarnate with us as a human being.

C S Lewis put it that God is not a person, having in mind deity as the eternal society of three persons. A big truth. The NT emphasis however is on the God the father, eg 1 Cor.8:6 which no more precludes deity from his son as it precludes lordship from the father. As Heiser noted, there are various ways to use the term θεος. I agree that deity has especially revealed himself through his incarnate son (Heb.1:2), the outraying of deity. Jhn.3:13 is also telling, at least in the NLT.

 

[RandyK]

I take Jhn.1:1 to predate Christology, in the sense that huiology is the larger field of study and can be traced in time before messiahship (eg Gen.1) and into eternity. Ie, the son-eternal exists beyond the son-temporal, his permanent mode in time-space, the christ, Jesus our lord, his streaming into history.

Thus contra Arius, there was never was a time when the son was not, though a time when Christ Jesus was not. Jhn.1:14 speaks of the beginning of the stream from the logos entering time-space via incarnation, a new reality. The name to be given their child was his incarnate name, not his noncarnate name (Lk.1:31). One can trace a prophetic stream of this name to Hoshea, son of Nun (Nb.13:16), and link it to the true exodus (a big NT theme incorporating the eucharist).

The NT can link the name Jesus to a beyond-incarnation state. That’s like saying that Queen Elizabeth 2 was born on April 21, 1926 (true in a sense), or you could say that as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary—the connecting link—was born queen on February 6, 1952, the day King George 6 died. For my money, systematically Jesus is only to be used from the conception, the nonhuman logos incarnate with us as a human being.

C S Lewis put it that God is not a person, having in mind deity as the eternal society of three persons. A big truth. The NT emphasis however is on the God the father, eg 1 Cor.8:6 which no more precludes deity from his son as it precludes lordship from the father. As Heiser noted, there are various ways to use the term θεος. I agree that deity has especially revealed himself through his incarnate son (Heb.1:2), the outraying of deity. Jhn.3:13 is also telling, at least in the NLT.

Yes, the name for "God" may have a plural ring to it largely because, I think, Scriptures are using the language of the contemporary times, so that a pagan use of "the gods" is being used to convey the actual truth that there is only one God. Language is funny that way. We're stuck with the language that people are using, no matter how much untruth may be attached to it. The explanation has to work things out.

I find the "God is not a person" thing, by Lewis, interesting. How can He be a "person" when this "Person" defies all explanation of how we, as people, would define a "person?" A 3-headed God cannot be a typical "person" as we understand the term.

I would say that God is a "person" nonetheless, but add that He is an unconventional Person, being infinite, and as such, is able to transform Himself into other dimensions, such as within the earthly dimension where He appears in geographical places as the Holy Spirit and in the man Jesus.

I completely agree that the terminology does not attempt to read back or ahead to maintain a consistent Christology or Trinitarianism. God is simply called "God," as the "Father," without arguing He can reveal Himself in Jesus before he actually comes. But if we describe the person Jesus in the sense that he preexisted as Deity, then we may safely say that Jesus was the preincarnate, eternal Son, even though technically he did not achieve sonship until he became a man.

Some people see the preincarnate Jesus as a kind of weird "Logos-Son," in order to retain the idea that the Trinity existed from eternity. But I think God, if anything, preexisted not just as a Trinity, but as an infinite possible number of incarnations or revelations of God's Person in different dimensions, whether theophanies or actual finite expressions of God's Person.

Thanks for sharing your brilliance--I enjoy it! I just hope I didn't misunderstand it! ;) And I hope I spoke well enough to convey what I'm trying to say?

 

[Runningman]

My point is , “word” throughout the N.T. Refers to basically the same thing…..which is speech. Something said. Ideas spoken, lessens taught….such as doctrine.etc

It never refers to a person. It only refers to a person from the ideas of the philosophers.

Trinitarians have taken that idea and used it for John 1.
But the point is, you won’t find that idea anywhere else with reference to “word”.

In the context of Revelation, Jesus is the executor of God’s Word whereby what God has SPOKEN by His judgments are executed by Jesus.

Exactly. The word of God isn't inherently Jesus', but something that was given to him and he testified of.

Revelation 1
1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

John 8
28Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

 

[LeviR]

Exactly. The word of God isn't inherently Jesus', but something that was given to him and he testified of.

Revelation 1
1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

John 8
28Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

If we think of the word as things God has spoken, and that it all relates to the fulfillment of what He spoke by His son coming in the flesh, this might be what John intended to convey.
If the plan is for the salvation of man, then all of which God spoke is embodied as the man Jesus to fulfill all the word. And as such, would be called the word of God. It would be a name of God applied to the flesh of the man who is Jesus.
“His name is called The Word of God”

 

[Free]

My point is , “word” throughout the N.T. Refers to basically the same thing…..which is speech. Something said. Ideas spoken, lessens taught….such as doctrine.etc

It never refers to a person. It only refers to a person from the ideas of the philosophers.

It refers to both in John 1:1-14 and Rev 19:13. Context determines meaning.

Trinitarians have taken that idea and used it for John 1.

But the point is, you won’t find that idea anywhere else with reference to “word”.

Because that is main meaning in John 1:1-18. John's whole point is to introduce us to Jesus and who he is. John first introduces us to the Word, who preexisted for all eternity with God and was God. There is a unity with God yet a distinctness. While Logos can have many different meanings, that John ascribing personhood to the Word is without question.

In the context of Revelation, Jesus is the executor of God’s Word whereby what God has SPOKEN by His judgments are executed by Jesus.

That doesn't explain his name. It's worth noting that only three verses later, John, again (already in Rev 17:14), applies a title of God (1 Tim 6:15) to Jesus:

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)

You should also study the significance of "name" as used in other places in the NT. From M. R. Vincent regarding Matt 28:19:

"In the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα)

Rev., correctly, “into the name.” . . . In the name (ἐν) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter." (Word Studies in the New Testament)

In other words, his name is who he is as to his nature.

Also, looking at believing "in his name" for salvation:

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

From M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, regarding John 1:12:

"Name (ὄνομα)

See on Mat 28:19. Expressing the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title."

That would necessarily entail his deity. This strongly suggests that if one gets Jesus wrong, there is no salvation.

 

[LeviR]

It refers to both in John 1:1-14 and Rev 19:13. Context determines meaning.


Because that is main meaning in John 1:1-18. John's whole point is to introduce us to Jesus and who he is. John first introduces us to the Word, who preexisted for all eternity with God and was God. There is a unity with God yet a distinctness. While Logos can have many different meanings, that John ascribing personhood to the Word is without question.


That doesn't explain his name. It's worth noting that only three verses later, John, again (already in Rev 17:14), applies a title of God (1 Tim 6:15) to Jesus:

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)

You should also study the significance of "name" as used in other places in the NT. From M. R. Vincent regarding Matt 28:19:

"In the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα)

Rev., correctly, “into the name.” . . . In the name (ἐν) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter." (Word Studies in the New Testament)

In other words, his name is who he is as to his nature.

Also, looking at believing "in his name" for salvation:

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

From M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, regarding John 1:12:

"Name (ὄνομα)

See on Mat 28:19. Expressing the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title."

That would necessarily entail his deity. This strongly suggests that if one gets Jesus wrong, there is no salvation.

I would agree that if one does not know the Christ is the son of the living God, then neither will the son of the living God know him.
I would also agree that John is personifying the Word as it relates to the Christ who is the son of the living God(the Father).
The Word can be personified by personal pronouns and applying it as a name given to another. Just as the power, knowledge and wisdom of God given by His Spirit can be personified the Comforter.

 

[Free]

I would agree that if one does not know the Christ is the son of the living God, then neither will the son of the living God know him.

If they don't believe he is truly God in human flesh--the Son of God in human flesh--they won't be saved.

I would also agree that John is personifying the Word as it relates to the Christ who is the son of the living God(the Father).
The Word can be personified by personal pronouns and applying it as a name given to another.

No, there is no personification. The Word is a person--"with God," in intimate, personal relationship, and also God in nature ("was God").

 

[LeviR]

One of the main problems for the Trinitarian is the idea that God died. The RCC claims that God died, while a great majority of others who claim to be orthodox disagree with the RCC.
It seems to me that the belief in whether or not the son died is vitally important. Wouldn’t you think?

 

[LeviR]

If they don't believe he is truly God in human flesh--the Son of God in human flesh--they won't be saved.


No, there is no personification. The Word is a person--"with God," in intimate, personal relationship, and also God in nature ("was God").

In John’s epistles he speaks to believers in Christ but warns them not to deny that Jesus had come in the flesh.
John is not warning them to deny Jesus was God or to deny he had come at all but rather he warns the believers not to deny the flesh of Christ as being something other than the flesh that all man share.
IOW, to deny that Jesus was something other than a flesh and blood man like all the rest would be a doctrine of antichrist.