The Incomparable Jesus Christ In The Prologue of John

[SolaScriptura]

This Prologue of the Gospel of John, which is from verse 1, to verse 18, is all about “ο λογος (THE WORD)”. It is very hard to understand, how anyone can read this entire passage in John chapter 1, about Jesus Christ, and then continue to deny that HE IS YHWH?

The first words of this Gospel, “εν αρχη ην ο λογος”, speak of the Eternal Existence of “The Word of God”, the Lord Jesus Christ. “εν αρχη” is not the Beginning of Creation, in Genesis chapter 1, which is in verse 3, but eternity past. In his First Letter, John says the same, “That which was from the beginning (ἀρχῆς)” (1:1).

“ο λογος (The Logos)”, answers to the Jewish Aramaic Targum’s use of “מימרא (Memra)”, which is many times used for Yahweh Himself. In Genesis 1:27, the Jerusalem Targum reads, “And the Word (מימרא) of the Lord Created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the Presence of the Lord He created him”, where “The Word”, is Personal. And, in 16:13, “And Hagar gave thanks, and prayed in the Name of the Word (מימרא) of the Lord”. For Exodus 19:17, Targum Onkelos reads, “And Mosheh led forth the people out of the camp to meet the Word (מימרא) of the Lord”. In Numbers 21:6, the Hebrew text reads, “And the people spoke against God and against Moses”. Onkelos reads, “And the people murmured against the Word (מימרא) of the Lord, and contended with Mosheh”. And verse 6, “And Yahweh sent forth burning serpents among the people, and much people of Israel died”. Of which Paul says, “nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents” (1 Corinthians 10:9). The Jews of the 1st century were well aware of Who “ο λογος”, is, and John says that this “מימרא” in the Old Testamnt, is JESUS CHRIST (Revelation 19:3), Who is YHWH.

Note the use of the verb, “ἦν”, translated “was”. It is in the imperfect tense, of, “εἰμί”, the present tense, “AM”. The imperfect denotes an incomplete action, which began in the past, and continuing in the present time. This is the same as Philippians 2:6, “Who, existing in the form of God”, where we have the Greek present participle, “ὑπάρχων (existing)”, used as the imperfect. Jesus Christ has always been in the “very nature of God (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων)”

In the next sentence, John says, “καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (and the Word was with God)”. We here have two distinct “Persons”, “ὁ λόγος (The Word)”, and “τὸν θεόν (God)”. The use of the Greek preposition, “πρὸς (with)”, which means, “on the side of, towards, in the presence of”, shows that “ὁ λόγος”, is DISTINCT from “τὸν θεόν”. This destroys the heresy that the Godhead (Romans 1:20, θειότης, the Divine Nature), is Unitarian. In John 17:5, Jesus says to the Father, “And now, O Father, Glorify Thou Me with (παρὰ, side by side with) Thine Own Self with the Glory which I had (εἶχον, imperfect, always had) with (παρὰ, side by side with) Thee before the world was (πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, before the world even existed)”. Here Jesus speaks of His Glory, which He had with God the Father, from all eternity past, which He “gave up” during His Incarnation, and resumed at His Ascension. In Isaiah 42:2, it says, “I am Yahweh. That is My Name. I will not give My Glory to another, nor My Praise to engraved images”. John 17:5 shows the absolute equality of Jesus Christ with the Father.

John goes on to say, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”. These words are a stumbling-block to some, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who, because of their theology on Jesus Christ, have translated this, “and the Word was a god”, and in a footnote, “or, ‘was divine’”. The Liberal scholar, Dr James Moffatt, in his New Testament, says, “the Logos was divine”. This reading can be discounted by the fact, that the Greek has a word for “divine”, which is “θείος”, an adjective, “θεὸς”, is a noun! Those who cannot accept the natural Greek reading of “God”, have tried to, unsuccessfully, to argue from the Greek grammar, that, as John does not use the definite article in the Greek, “ὁ θεὸς”, it does not mean “God”, but “god”.

Way back in the 3rd century A.D., we have the theologian, Origen (A.D. 184-253), who wrote on John 1:1, “That there is a difference between ο θεος with the article, meaning God, and θεος without the article, meaning Divine. He says that God Himself is ο θεος and αὐτὸ-θεος (God of Himself): everything else is defined by participation of His Godhead. The Logos, therefore, is fitly called not ο θεος, but θεος simply” (Dr R S Franks; The Doctrine of The Trinity, pp.92-93). Is this distinction a valid one, or the theology of Origen, who taught, “that the essence of the Father and of the Son was not the same, but that there was a difference of essence, thus paving the way for Arianism" (F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church, p.163). Does “θεος” mean less than “ο θεος”? In John 1:6, it says, “There was a man sent from God (the Father)”, where the Greek is, “παρα θεου”, and not, “παρα του θεου”. Do we here translate it as “There was a man sent from god, or a god”? We also have in verse 12, “children of God (θεου)”, and 13, “but of God (θεου)”, in neither place does it read, “του θεου”. Should these also be translated as “god, or a god”? Why is there a distinction made between “ο θεος and θεος” for John 1:1, when used for Jesus Christ, but not for the Father? It has to do with theology, and not the Greek grammar.

When John writes, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”, he does not mean that “ὁ λόγος”, is a “secondary god”, as suggested by Origen, and the Jehovah's Witnesses do. We have seen that the use and non use of the Greek article, does not denote a different meaning for “θεος”. What we have is a simple sentence structure. “Every sentence must contain two parts, a subject and a predicate. The subject is that of which something is stated. The predicate is that which is stated of the subject…A predicate noun or adjective seldom has the article” (William Goodwin, Greek Grammar, sec. 890, 956, pp.196, 208)

“General rule, The subject has the article, while the predicate is without it” (William Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language, sec. 460, p.120). In John 1:1, the “subject” is no doubt, “The Word”, as it is about Him. The “predicate” in this last sentence, is “θεος”, which is a statement about the “subject”. John is here stating, that “The Word”, is “God”, as much as “The God”, besides (πρὸς) Whom He is. In John 8:54, Jesus says to the Jews, “εστιν ο πατηρ μου ο δοξαζων με ον υμεις λεγετε οτι θεος υμων εστιν”, which is literally, “it is My Father Who Glorifies Me, Who you say that God your He is”. Here, “ο πατηρ μου (My Father)” is the subject, and “θεος”, is the predicate. It is never translated as “god”, or “a god”. So why different in John 1:1, where the grammatical construction is the same?

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that John should have written, “καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”. Had John written this, then he would have meant that “ὁ λόγος”, was identical to “τὸν θεόν”, in the previous sentence. Grammatically, however, he had just written, “καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν”, where the use of the preposition, “πρὸς”, is clear that two distinct Persons are meant. It becomes a contradiction, and confusing, if he wrote, “καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”.

The word order, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”, literally, “and God was the Word”, is not a problem. As we have in John 4:24, where the Greek reads: “πνεῦμα ὁ θεός”, which is literally, “spirit the God”, but translated, “God is spirit”. This does not mean that God the Father, of Whom Jesus is speaking, is The Holy Spirit, but, that He is a “spiritual Person”. Here, like in John 1:1, “θεὸς” we have the predicate of the sentence, “πνεῦμα”, without the article. It is very clear, that John means, “and the Word was God”, and no other reading is correct. Interestingly, the Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, has in the 1864 edition, in the right-hand version, “and the Logos was God”. In the New Testament by the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, he translates the Greek, “and the Word was God”, even though, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, he denied that Jesus Christ is GOD.

John 1:2, reads: “οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν”. This verse begins with the demonstrative pronoun, “οὗτος”, which is in the masculine, singular, literally, “This one”, that is “ὁ λόγος”, Who is God. This verse is not a mere repetition of verse 1, where, “ἐν ἀρχῇ”, refers to “eternity past”, where “The Word” has always existed with “the Father”. Now John has moved on to the “Beginning of The Creation (ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ)” of the entire universe, which is also “πρὸς τὸν θεόν”, as in verse 1. The next verse, shows that this “ἐν ἀρχῇ”, in verse 2 is the Creation.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Cont...

Verse 3 reads, “παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν”, which is literally, “all things by Him came into being, and without Him came into being, not even one thing which has come into being”. How anyone can doubt that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, The Great I AM, Yahweh? It is abundantly clear from this passage, and especially from this verse, that Jesus Christ IS The actual Creator. There is not a single part of the whole of Creation, that came into being, apart from His Creative Power. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God (אֱלֹהִ֑ים, masculine, plural Created the heavens and the earth”. It does not say, “God Created through Jesus Christ”, as some erroneously teach. As we have seen in verse 2, “The Word” was WITH “the Father”, at The Creation. In verse 3, the Greek preposition, “δι (διά), has the meaning, “together with”, including God that Father. Otherwise we have Jesus Christ as the Sole Creator of the entire universe, and “Greater” than the Father, Who is not also The Creator. In Hebrews 2:10, we read, “For it became him, for (δι) whom are all things, and through (δι) whom are all things, which is for the Father. Are we to understand that the preposition here means that someone Created “through” the Father? If not here, then why in John 1:3? It is clear from Galatians 1:1, that “διά”, is used for two distinct Persons, “but διά Jesus Christ and God the Father (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς)”, where it is use for both Jesus Christ and the Father, together. Co-Creators. In Isaiah 54:5, we read, “For your Maker is your husband; Yahweh of hosts is His Name”. Here, “Maker” is the Hebrew, “עֹשַׂיִךְ”, which is masculine, plural, “Makers”! And, in Ecclesiastes 12:1, where it reads, “Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth”, here also the Hebrew, “אֶת־בּוֹרְאֶיךָ”, is masculine, plural, literally, “your Creators”.

John 1:4 reads, “εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων”. “In Him was Life and the Life was the Light of men”. There is a reading of the Greek, that also dates from the 2nd century, “εν αυτω ζωὴ ἐστιν (in Him is Life). Whichever reading is the original, the meaning is not changed. It is clear, that Jesus Christ is the SOURCE of all life, which is found “IN Him”. We read in Acts 17, “εν αυτω γαρ ζωμεν και κινουμεθα και εσμεν”, “for in Him (God) we live and move and exist”. In Acts 3:15, Peter says of Jesus, that He is, the “αρχηγον” of life. “first cause, originator”, out of Whom we have all life! Deuteronomy 32:39 says, “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life”; and Nehemiah 9:6, “You alone are the LORD...You give life to all of them”, and Psalm 36:9, “For with You is the Fountain (מָקֹור, the Source) of Life”. In 1 John 1:1-2, we read of Jesus Christ, “concerning the Word of life (του λογου της ζωης), the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life (την ζωην την αιωνιον, literally, The Life The Eternal), which was with the Father and was made manifest to us”. In Revelation 1:17-18, Jesus says of Himself, “εγω ειμι ο πρωτος και ο εσχατος και ο ζων”, literally, “I am The First and The Last and The Life”. Of “ο πρωτος και ο εσχατος”, the Unitarian Greek scholar, Dr Thayer, in his Greek lexicon, says, “the eternal One”. The Greek Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, reads in Exodus 3:14, “Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (I am The Eternal One)”. In Isaiah 44:6, Yahweh is Speaking, “I am The First and I am The Last, and beside Me there is no god”. Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:17, 2:8, and 22:13, directly says that He IS Yahweh! In John 14:6, Jesus does not only say of Himself, that He, and He ALONE is THE WAY and THE TRUTH, but that He IS also THE LIFE. All of this says that Jesus Christ IS Yahweh, The Almighty, The Creator of the entire universe. How can anyone think any less?

In verse 13, I believe without any doubt, that this verse, as Originally written by John, is for the Virgin Conception of Jesus Christ, and not the corrupted reading that refers to “Children of God”, the believers. Instead of the reading, “οἳ... ἐγεννήθησαν” which...were begotten), which is in the plural, we have another reading from the early 2nd century, “ὃς... ἐγεννήθη (who...was begotten)”, which is in the singular. The theologian, Tertullian, in the 2nd century, accused the heretic, Valentinus, of corrupting the singular to the plural. In a very early work, “Epistula Apostolorum”, which was originally written in Greek, and has been dated by some as early as 120 AD, it says:

“In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, that he is the word become flesh: that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body, begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of the will (lust) of the flesh, but by the will of God” (Chapter 3)

Clearly referring to John 1:13. Regardless of the early Greek manuscripts reading the plural, which has been corrupted at a very early time. We have the singular found in the Old Latin Version, which was made in the early 2nd cent., from the Greek. Also, Irenaeus (130-202); the heretic Origen (185-254); Peter of Alexandria (died 311); Hilary (315-367); Ambrose (339-397); Augustine (354-430). When the reading, “τοῦ θεοῦ Χριστοῦ”, in Colossians 2:2, by Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort, Nestle, etc, the only Greek manuscript that supported it, is the Codex Vaticanus, of the 4th cent., and Hilary, a Latin Church Father! There are 14 different readings for this verse!

The internal Greek grammar is also very strong for the reading, “ὃς... ἐγεννήθη”. Verse 12 does not end, “in His Name”, but, literally, “in Name His (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ), “αὐτοῦ”, is the masculine singular. There were no chapter of verse divisions in the Original Books. John goes on to write, “ὃς”, the singular, which connects to the singular “αὐτοῦ”. Then it says, “ἐξ αἱμάτων”, literally, “out of bloods”, in the plural number, which is a reference to the father and mother. The reading “natural descent”, of some translations, does not require the plural, when the singular, “αἵματός”, would suffice, as in Acts 17:26, “And hath made of one blood (αἵματός) all nations of men” (KJV). Then we read, “οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς”, which is, “nor of human desire”. In John 3:6, Jesus says that all humans are “born out of flesh”, so it cannot refer to humans in 1:13. Next, “οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς”, “nor of the desire of the male”. If it is to refer to the “New Birth” of the “children of God”, in verse 12, then John would have used, “ἄνθρωπος”, a generic term, which includes both male and female, and not “ἀνδρὸς”, which is masculine, and excludes females. Then “ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθη”, “out of God was born”. John uses similar language for Jesus Christ in 1 John 5:18, “ο γεννηθεις εκ του θεου” (He Who was begotten out of God). Verse 14 begins with the Greek conjunction, “Καὶ”, which is used to continue the thoughts. Clearly all of this says the singular reading, for Jesus Christ is the Original.

In verse 14, John says, “Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο”. The same “ὁ λόγος”, Who, in verse 1, is GOD, in verse 3 CREATOR, in verse 4 GIVER OF LIFE, here “becomes flesh”, and “lives among us (καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν)”. Note, John does not say, “Καὶ ὁ λόγος ὁ σὰρξ ἐγένετο”, where the Greek article “ὁ” is also used with the predicate substantive, “σὰρξ. In which case the meaning would be, that “the Word changed into flesh”, and ceased to be “The Word”, because He was “all flesh”. This is what the Greek article would have done in verse 1, where, “καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”, would make Jesus Christ, “The Word”, all of God, and not The Father or The Holy Spirit! The Greek grammar is very exact in what it says. Paul says the same in the Original and best attested evidence, in 1 Timothy 3:16, “without controversy Great is The Mystery of Godliness, God was Manifested in flesh”. This reading is in the 1st century AD, where we have, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (AD 35-107), who says in his Letter to the Ephesian Church, Chapter VII, “εν σαρκι γενομενοϛ Θεοϛ” (“God Come in the flesh”; Bart Ehrman; Loeb Classical Library, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 1, chapter 7, pp. 226, 227). And in chapter 19, “God became Manifest in a human way” (Θεου ανθρωπινωϛ ϕανερουμενου, ibid, pp. 238, 239).

 

[SolaScriptura]

Cont...

In John 1:18, we have a very interesting, and Original reading, which is found in a few of the modern Versions of the Bible.

“θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο”, literally, “God no one has seen at any time, the Unique God Who is always in close relation with the Father, He has made Him known” (my translation)

The reading “μονογενὴς θεὸς (God)”, instead of “μονογενὴς υἱὸς (Son)”, is found in the oldest Greek manuscripts for the Gospel of John. The Codices P66 (about 200 AD, Herbert Hunger dates it between 100-150); P75 (early 3rd cent.). It is also the reading of, the Codices, Sinaticus (4th), Vaticanus (4th), Ephraemi (5th). Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (130-200), Clement of Alexandria (150-215), and The Diatessaron, (about 180, from the Greek). We also have the testimony of the early “heretics”, like Valentinus of Egypt (about 140), Origen (185-254), Arius of Alexandria (250-336), who read “θεὸς” in John 1:18. The Unitarian New Testament by Dr Noyes, also has “God”. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, in both their Kingdom Greek Interlinears, read: “θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς”, and translate it, “God no one has seen at any time, only-begotten god”. Like John 1:1, their translation has nothing to do with what the Greek grammar actually says. Why would they use “God” for the Father, and then “god” for Jesus Christ? They cannot argue because of the Greek grammar. In both places there is no definite article in the Greek, “Θεὸν, θεὸς”, not, “τὸν θεόν, ὁ θεὸς”. It is either “God” in both places, or “god”, there are not grammatical grounds for one “God” and the other “god”.

The adjective, “μονογενὴς”, when used in the Greek Septuagint Version, never has the meaning “Begotten”

Judges 11:34, “Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only (μονογενὴς) child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter”

Psalm 22:20, “Deliver my soul from the sword; Mine only one (μονογενὴς) from the power of the dog”

Psalm 25:16, “Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am alone (μονογενὴς) and afflicted”

Likewise in the other places where used in the New Testament;

Luke 7:12, “Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only (μονογενὴς) son of his mother”

Luke 8:42, “For he had one only (μονογενὴς) daughter, about twelve years of age

Luke 9:38, “Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only (μονογενὴς) child”

Hebrews 11:17, “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only (μονογενὴς) son”

It is clear from the uses here of “μονογενὴς”, that it does not mean “only-begotten”, but, “one and only”, or “unique”.

"the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, unique" (H G Liddell and R Scott; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.1144. Revised Edition)

"only...Also unique (in kind) of someth. that it the only example of its category...'unique and alone'" (W F Ardnt and F W Gingrich; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.529)

“But the word can also be used more generally without ref. to derivation in the sense of “unique,” “unparalleled,” “incomparable,”” (Gerhard Kittel; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament)

"μονογενὴς is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” “unique” (unicus), not “only-begotten,” which would be μονογέννητος, (unigenitus), and is common in the LXX in this sense" (J H Moulton & G Milligan; Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. pp. 416-417)

Jesus Christ is The UNIQUE God, because He as God from eternity past, became Incarnate, the God-Man, fully God and fully Man, with the exception of any sin. “GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH”

In this we have seen, not only the Absolute Deity of Jesus Christ, and His Complete EQUALITY with God the Father; but, also the clear Distinction of Persons between Jesus Christ and The Father, Who are not One and the same Person. Conclusive evidence that the teaching of Unitarianism is a man-made HERESY. The Godhead is indeed One, but eternally Existing Three distinct but equal Persons: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit. The Original writing by the Apostle John, in his First Letter, is clear:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (chapter 5, verse 7)

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings SolaScriptura,

This Prologue of the Gospel of John, which is from verse 1, to verse 18, is all about “ο λογος (THE WORD)”. It is very hard to understand, how anyone can read this entire passage in John chapter 1, about Jesus Christ, and then continue to deny that HE IS YHWH?
The first words of this Gospel, “εν αρχη ην ο λογος”, speak of the Eternal Existence of “The Word of God”, the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 1:1 uses the expression "The Word", not "the Lord Jesus Christ". I consider "The Word" is a personification similar to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 who was with God in the creation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[SolaScriptura]

Greetings SolaScriptura,

John 1:1 uses the expression "The Word", not "the Lord Jesus Christ". I consider "The Word" is a personification similar to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 who was with God in the creation.

Kind regards
Trevor

Really? have you read verse 14?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Greetings SolaScriptura,

John 1:1 uses the expression "The Word", not "the Lord Jesus Christ". I consider "The Word" is a personification similar to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 who was with God in the creation.

Kind regards
Trevor

I explained in the other thread that the Word, ο λογος, is the divine order of the universe by which everything functions they way they do, hence "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." This was common Greek philosophy which John's orignal readers would be very familiar with, and John was connecting this order with Jesus, that it's not just a neutral force or a power like gravity, it's a person who is our personal savior. In Rev. 19:13 it is written: "His name is called The Word of God."

 

[SolaScriptura]

Greetings SolaScriptura,

John 1:1 uses the expression "The Word", not "the Lord Jesus Christ". I consider "The Word" is a personification similar to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 who was with God in the creation.

Kind regards
Trevor

1 John 1:1-4

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.

The SAME "Word" as in John 1:1, Who is "with the Father", is the Person Jesus Christ, Who became flesh, while remaining to be God. As Paul says, "God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16)

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again SolaScriptura and Greetings Carry_Your_Name,

Really? have you read verse 14?

Yes, very much so, John 1:14 shows how The Word, God's Thoughts, Plan, Purpose and Character came to be revealed in Jesus the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father and this glory revealed was manifested, embodied in Jesus in his character. he was "full of grace and truth". Jesus is the only begotten of the Father and Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 reveals how this begettal was accomplished when God the Father was the father of Jesus and Mary his mother.

This was common Greek philosophy which John's orignal readers would be very familiar with, and John was connecting this order with Jesus

God did not need the faulty philosophy of the Jews and Greeks as the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. These philosophers did not perceive God's wisdom revealed in the Son of God.
1 Corinthians 1:19–25 (KJV): 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The language of John 1:1 is based upon the Wise Woman "Wisdom" of Proverbs 8, who was with God in the Creation. If there is any similarity between John's words and Greek philosophy, it would be to refute that philosophy. If any thing the Trinitarian view of John 1:1 is based upon Greek philosophy and Platoism and immortal souls, not upon the pure word of God.
Psalm 12:6 (KJV): The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalm 119:140 (KJV): Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

The following expresses a similar sentiment and then proceeds to speak about a similar development of how God's word becomes effectual and embodied and outworked in Jesus the Son of God.
Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

concerning the Word of Life

Yes, 1 John 1 uses similar language and the additional focus on "life" is also considered. We obtain "life" or salvation by faith in the spoken Word of Life, and Jesus is the embodiment of the Word, through whom this life may be obtained by faith. This is the same as The Word that was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. The word "dwelt" of John 1:14 can also be translated "tabernacled", and Jesus is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Tabernacle and all its furniture including the Most Holy with the Ark of the Covenant, The Mercy Seat, the Shekinah Glory, The Cherubim, all of these represent how the One God, Yahweh, God the Father was to dwell among His people in the being our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

God did not need the faulty philosophy of the Jews and Greeks as the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. These philosophers did not perceive God's wisdom revealed in the Son of God.

What if John’s original readers have NEVER heard of this Jewish messiah, never read Proverbs, all they’ve ever known is that “faulty philosophy”, and the Trinity doctrine didn’t exist yet, what’re you gonna do? How are you gonna preach Jesus to them? You gotta put your feet in their shoes, confirmation bias will only blind you.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Carry_Your_Name,

What if John’s original readers have NEVER heard of this Jewish messiah, never read Proverbs, all they’ve ever known is that “faulty philosophy”, and the Trinity doctrine didn’t exist yet, what’re you gonna do? How are you gonna preach Jesus to them? You gotta put your feet in their shoes, confirmation bias will only blind you.

I am not sure if you are trying to justify the development of the Trinity in the 3rd and 4th Centuries, but I disagree that the language of John was meant to help this development as I consider that the Trinity is part of the Apostasy.

As far as Greek Philosophy is concerned I have heard that John's writing could have been a direct answer to Gnosticism, but I have not studied this. As far as the corruption of the Apostolic teaching, the following is interesting:

History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I am not sure if you are trying to justify the development of the Trinity in the 3rd and 4th Centuries, but I disagree that the language of John was meant to help this development as I consider that the Trinity is part of the Apostasy.

As far as Greek Philosophy is concerned I have heard that John's writing could have been a direct answer to Gnosticism, but I have not studied this. As far as the corruption of the Apostolic teaching, the following is interesting:

I'm not sure what you're getting at, all I'm suggesting is to think outside the box. For several centuries there was no bible, only OT scripture scrolls at the synagogues, KJV didn't exist until the 16th century or so, and the vast majority of people were illiterate, most were polytheistic, how do you think the early church survived and thrived? How did John connect with his original readers? You see, this has nothing to do with the Trinity, what matters is not whether it's true or false, but it complicates simple things. John was not preaching to the mirror or the choir, he was preaching to mission field and speaking in terms they could understand. If you keep going on and on with the Trinity and nothing else, then you're just preaching to the mirror. This thread is not about Trinity, and I'm not here to debate on that.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Carry_Your_Name,

I'm not sure what you're getting at, all I'm suggesting is to think outside the box. For several centuries there was no bible, only OT scripture scrolls at the synagogues, KJV didn't exist until the 16th century or so, and the vast majority of people were illiterate, most were polytheistic, how do you think the early church survived and thrived?

I consider that you have ignored three things. The first is that the early believers were given the Holy Spirit gifts and these were helpful in teaching the Truth and edifying the individual Ekklesias. The second is that they would gradually receive the first three gospel records of Jesus' teaching and example, and third, they had the Apostles and other faithful disciples ministering to them. I consider that John's Gospel was possibly written later than the three other Gospels. Also Paul wrote numerous letters, and these would be copied and distributed. There were also other letters or writings, by James, Peter, John and Jude. All of this was in the 1st Century. I disagree with your "several centuries" concept.

How did John connect with his original readers?

His initial readers were by that time most probably mature believers who had been aware of Jesus and his teaching from the beginning, or if recently converted would be aware of the teaching of Matthew, Mark and Luke's records.

This thread is not about Trinity, and I'm not here to debate on that.

The OP is ALL about the Trinity.

This Prologue of the Gospel of John, which is from verse 1, to verse 18, is all about “ο λογος (THE WORD)”. It is very hard to understand, how anyone can read this entire passage in John chapter 1, about Jesus Christ, and then continue to deny that HE IS YHWH?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I consider that you have ignored three things. The first is that the early believers were given the Holy Spirit gifts and these were helpful in teaching the Truth and edifying the individual Ekklesias. The second is that they would gradually receive the first three gospel records of Jesus' teaching and example, and third, they had the Apostles and other faithful disciples ministering to them. I consider that John's Gospel was possibly written later than the three other Gospels. Also Paul wrote numerous letters, and these would be copied and distributed. There were also other letters or writings, by James, Peter, John and Jude. All of this was in the 1st Century. I disagree with your "several centuries" concept.

His initial readers were by that time most probably mature believers who had been aware of Jesus and his teaching from the beginning, or if recently converted would be aware of the teaching of Matthew, Mark and Luke's records.

There were OT scrolls, but no canonical bible. Paul's letters are all responses to specific problems in the early church, and all his teaching was firmly based on the OT, he never invented anything new that wasn't in the OT. When he was in Borea, the Boreans scrutinized his teaching through the lens of the OT, and that's the "canon" they had. The core message of the whole gospel is encapulsated in 1 Cor. 15:3 - "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures". That "Scriptures" is the OT, so is any mention of "the Scriptures" in the NT. Even in the famous 2 Tim. 3:16 where it says "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God", that's referring to the OT, not any gospel records or any of those letters.

The point is, today's canonical bible is not dropped from the sky, nor is the trinity doctrine or any other doctrines, that's not what "given by inspiration of God" means, and it's not helpful to pretend that it is dropped from the sky and then take all of it for granted, and then judge and interpret everything through the lens of these church doctrines which didn't exist in the first century among the early church. In all of these letters, the readers were presumed and expected to be familiar with the OT, but not any gospel record or modern theology. Paul never mentioned any of those miracles Jesus performed, not even any of Jesus's moral teachings or parables, but he did write in detail about how Jesus fulfilled all the messianic prophecies and brought salvation. Peter and John were there with Jesus during His ministry, they were His closest disciples in His inner circle, and yet in Peter's and John's epistles there were no mentions of any of Jesus's miracles, teachings or parables, it's only theology, so why is that if their readers were supposed to be aware of the synopotic gospel teachings?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Carry_Your_Name,

There were OT scrolls, but no canonical bible.

I disagree with your overall perspective. I consider that the early believers were taught the essential aspects of the Gospel, and then were baptised and became members of their respective Ekklesia, and from there they were further educated and edified.
Acts 8:5–6,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Ephesians 4:11–16 (KJV): 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I disagree with your overall perspective. I consider that the early believers were taught the essential aspects of the Gospel, and then were baptised and became members of their respective Ekklesia, and from there they were further educated and edified.

Essential aspects of the gospel was fulfillment of the OT. When Phillip preached Christ to the eunuch, that eunuch was reading Is. 53, that's what "according to the Scriptures" means! Phillip didn't make up any of "those things".

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Carry_Your_Name,

Essential aspects of the gospel was fulfillment of the OT. When Phillip preached Christ to the eunuch, that eunuch was reading Is. 53, that's what "according to the Scriptures" means! Phillip didn't make up any of "those things".

Yes, but the additional perspective is their fulfillment in Christ, and as you especially mention Isaiah 53 this speaks of the sufferings and crucifixion of Jesus. If the teachings by Peter in Acts 2 and 3 are analysed, different portions could be listed under the two general categories "the things of the Kingdom" and "the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ" and although much of these speeches are quoting and alluding to the OT, Peter shows their fulfillment in Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[SolaScriptura]

The OP is ALL about the Trinity

If anyone reads the OP, and still denies that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, YHWH, and completely equal with the Father in the eternal Godhead. Then, either they are greatly deceived, or their "theology" has blinded them, or, they refuse to accept and believe what the Inspired, Infallible, Word of God, the Holy Bible clearly Teaches

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Greetings again Carry_Your_Name,

Yes, but the additional perspective is their fulfillment in Christ, and as you especially mention Isaiah 53 this speaks of the sufferings and crucifixion of Jesus. If the teachings by Peter in Acts 2 and 3 are analysed, different portions could be listed under the two general categories "the things of the Kingdom" and "the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ" and although much of these speeches are quoting and alluding to the OT, Peter shows their fulfillment in Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

In Acts 2 and 3, the crowd was made up of Jewish pilgrims who came from all those nations to Jerusalem for Pentecost, aka Feast of Weeks. They were educated with the messianic prophecies, which were fulfilled in Christ.

 

[SolaScriptura]

For several centuries there was no bible

that is not correct.

There has always been a Bible, the Old Testament before the Birth of Jesus Christ, in Hebrew and Greek (LXX). And, after the Death of Jesus Christ, there were the Writings of the Apostles and others, which formed the New Testament as 27 Inspired Books in one, in the fourth century. The main Version in the Church was the Latin Vulgate, but there were others, like the Old Syriac, which is before this, and many other translations of the 27 Books. in the 14th century, the English theologian, John Wycliffe, translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate, into English. The KJV is 17th century, 1611.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

that is not correct.

There has always been a Bible, the Old Testament before the Birth of Jesus Christ, in Hebrew and Greek (LXX). And, after the Death of Jesus Christ, there were the Writings of the Apostles and others, which formed the New Testament as 27 Inspired Books in one, in the fourth century. The main Version in the Church was the Latin Vulgate, but there were others, like the Old Syriac, which is before this, and many other translations of the 27 Books. in the 14th century, the English theologian, John Wycliffe, translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate, into English. The KJV is 17th century, 1611.

That's the OT Hebrew bible, which is all the "Scriptures" was referring to, including the Septuigant, which is the Greek translation of the OT, and they may or may not have some apocryphal books not in today's canonical bible of 66 books, that's what I meant "there was no bible at those days". The Latin Vulgate didn't exist yet, neither did the Trinity doctrine at the time when the gospel of John was written and distributed, that's why I argued it should be read and interpreted from the early church's perspective, not our Trinitarian perspective.