The Nicene Creed

[Jim Parker]

I think the term the 325 creed says is: "begotten, not made,"

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth and of all that is seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father
Through Him all things were made.
For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven:

By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilot;
He suffered and died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures;
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead
And his kingdom will never end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and life ever lasting.

Amen.

They are trying to convey the same essence: "being of one substance with the Father".

They were using technical terms from Greek philosophy which were developed expressly to communicate such difficult concepts.
The specific word was "ousia" which we translate into English as "substance" or "essence." The English words provide an approximation of the meaning of the Greek word. What is being conveyed is that the Son is deity exactly as the Father is deity. (As is also the Holy Spirit.) The Church concluded that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were of the "same essence". (homoousia: homo=same, ousia=essence or substance)

The teaching which precipitated the necessity for an ecumenical (all-church) council was the teaching of Arius that there was a "time when the son was not" and thus not co-eternal with the Father and a creation of the Father, ie; a creature rather than deity.

John 1:1 affirms both the deity and eternity of the Son.

The second council (Constantinople 381AD) dealt with the same kind of issues with relation to the Holy Spirit.

iakov the fool

 

[smaller]

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth and of all that is seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father
Through Him all things were made.
For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven:

By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilot;
He suffered and died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures;
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead
And his kingdom will never end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and life ever lasting.

Amen.



They were using technical terms from Greek philosophy which were developed expressly to communicate such difficult concepts.
The specific word was "ousia" which we translate into English as "substance" or "essence." The English words provide an approximation of the meaning of the Greek word. What is being conveyed is that the Son is deity exactly as the Father is deity. (As is also the Holy Spirit.) The Church concluded that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were of the "same essence". (homoousia: homo=same, ousia=essence or substance)

The teaching which precipitated the necessity for an ecumenical (all-church) council was the teaching of Arius that there was a "time when the son was not" and thus not co-eternal with the Father and a creation of the Father, ie; a creature rather than deity.

John 1:1 affirms both the deity and eternity of the Son.

The second council (Constantinople 381AD) dealt with the same kind of issues with relation to the Holy Spirit.

iakov the fool

I think we all noticed the more it was tweaked, the worse it got for everyone.

 

[Jim Parker]

I think we all noticed the more it was tweaked, the worse it got for everyone.

"WE all"??? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
How did it get "worse" and how was it "bad" to begin with.
It wasn't "tweaked" at all. Each council dealt with issues as they arose.

1. Nicaea, 325 Issue: The teachings of Arius that “there was a time when the Son was not” thus making the Son other than eternal God with the Father as described in John 1:1.
2. Constantinople, 381 Issue: Eradication of Arianism and condemnation of Macedadonios and Apollinarianism by establishing o the unity of the Trinity and the complete manhood of Christ.
The council condemned Macedonius’ teaching and defined the doctrine of the Holy Trinity which decrees that there is one God in three hypostases. Thus the Holy spirit is fully God, equal to the Father and the Son and of one essence with them. This became the basis of the Christian faith.
3. Ephesus, 431 Issue: The heretical teachings of Nestorios, the Archbishop of Constantinople concerning the divine and human natures of Christ.
4. Chalcedon, 451 Issue: The person of Christ. (Again) Eutyches, an Archimandrite in Constantinople, held that the human (less perfect) nature of Christ had been completely absorbed by His divine nature thus confounding the two natures into one after which there was only one nature in Christ. (Thus the heresy was named “Monophysitism” meaning, “of one nature.”)
5. Constantinople, 553 Issue: The continuing Monophysite controversy.
6. Constantinople, 680 Issue: Monothelitism which denied the existence of a human as well as Divine will in Jesus. Monothelitism, the teaching that there was only one will in the God-man, Christ, was proposed as a “middle ground” between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism in order to bring Nestorian Armenians back into the church at a time when the Byzantine empire was threatened by the Persians and Mohammedans.
7. Nicaea, 787 Issue: Iconoclasm in response to excessive religious respect and the ascribed miracles to icons by some members of society approached the point of worship (due only to God) and idolatry. This instigated excesses at the other extreme by which icons were completely taken out of the liturgical life of the church by iconoclasts.

 

[childeye]

Arianism is a nontrinitarian belief that asserts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, created by God the Father, distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to the Father Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius (c. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt. The teachings are opposed to mainstream Christian teachings on the nature of the Trinity and on the nature of Christ. The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by God the Father. This belief is based on an interpretation of a verse in the Gospel of John (14:28): "You heard me say, 'I am going away, and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Trinitarianism was formally affirmed by the first two Ecumenical Councils. All mainstream branches of Christianity therefore consider Arianism to be heterodox and heretical. The Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325 deemed it to be a heresy. At the regional First Synod of Tyre in 335, Arius was exonerated. After his death, he was again anathemised and pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381. The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.​

Arianism is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism) or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

Thank to Wikipedia, you now know!

Arianism is an ancient heresy. It is really that simple.

We still don't know what Arius taught. Everything we are told that he taught, is presented by his opponents.

From Wikipedia:
Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius has proven to be a difficult task, as none of his original writings survive. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living, and any that survived this purge were later destroyed by his Orthodox opponents. Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic. This leads some—but not all—scholars to question their reliability

I question whether it was a heresy. God spoke and through His Word all things were created. So was there a time or place before God spoke, before anything was created? Before God expressed Himself?

At any rate, it bothers me that his works were destroyed. I wouldn't burn Mein Kampf, just because I was afraid that those who read it would become Nazis. The Truth is not impotent. It seems to me, that those who Know the Truth endures and why, shouldn't fear lies.

 

[childeye]

My position is that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of YHWH who began to exist as a living being when he was conceived in his mother's womb via the power of the Holy Spirit. His Father spoke him into existence (the word became flesh). Prior to that, he existed only in the mind of his Father YHWH.

As I understand it, Arius believed the Son preexisted, but not eternally, that is, that he had a beginning prior to creation.

We know Jesus was born and had a beginning as a man. The Word is the power that created all things including time and space. As pertains to the Word, there could be an eternal existence before God ever spoke. This doesn't change the fact that God's Word is the expression of Himself.

 

[jocor]

We know Jesus was born and had a beginning as a man. The Word is the power that created all things including time and space. As pertains to the Word, there could be an eternal existence before God ever spoke. This doesn't change the fact that God's Word is the expression of Himself.

Are you capitalizing "Word" out of respect for something related to "God" or because you are using it as a reference to another being (the Son)? I believe that the word/logos is an expression of Father YHWH and that He used it to speak creation into existence (Psalm 33:6), but I do not believe the word/logos was a second person until it became flesh. Now that Yeshua has become the Word, he has become the expression of his Father.

 

[JLB]

My position is that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of YHWH who began to exist as a living being when he was conceived in his mother's womb via the power of the Holy Spirit. His Father spoke him into existence (the word became flesh). Prior to that, he existed only in the mind of his Father YHWH.

So now you are teaching that the Father is the Word, and Jesus was "created"?

All things, planets, people, angels, consist and are upheld by His [Jesus] Word.

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:17

has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Hebrews 1:2-3

The writer goes on to show us in the next few verse's, as he expounds in more detail what is meant by upholding all things by His word; The Word of His power.


“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:10


This shows us plainly what Lord means in the New Testament, in reference to Jesus, The Son of God.

Those who deny Jesus as Lord, The Lord Who laid the foundation of the earth, and stretched out the heavens, and created all things, and upholds all things, denies Him as Lord, as this is not the work of man, but of God.

The Lord God.

The Lord God who is our Savior.

For I am the Lord your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; Isaiah 43:3

To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
2 Peter 1:1

and again

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
Titus 2:13

 

[childeye]

Are you capitalizing "Word" out of respect for something related to "God" or because you are using it as a reference to another being (the Son)?

Good question. In my mind, I tend to capitalize 'Word' to indicate that it/he is Spirit, and therefore a person in that respect. I don't want people to be mistaking the Word with written scripture.

I believe that the word/logos is an expression of Father YHWH and that He used it to speak creation into existence (Psalm 33:6), but I do not believe the word/logos was a second person until it became flesh.

I think the term "person" and it's meaning would have to be examined. To me, personhood is the highest comprehension of sentient existence that we mean to express. Or in other words, a rock is a thing and not regarded as high as a person. Therefore God is a at least a Person for lack of any higher term of definition. Consequently, to me, The Word, that created the heavens, the earth, and all the 'persons', such as Angels and Adam, who also have an emotional and sentient existence, would have to at least be a person in Spirit to begin with, since a thing couldn't conceive such persons higher than it's self. That doesn't necessarily mean God's Word was finished speaking or creating. For I also imagine that God would have to first create beings with ears to hear and minds to understand, before He could be heard and understood.

Now that Yeshua has become the Word, he has become the expression of his Father.

That could be true from a hearers perspective. But from the original speakers perspective, the Spirit, or personhood of the Word, took on flesh and became Yeshua, a man. There is a semantic dilemma that occurs when two people hug. They are both giving and taking at the same time. Consequently, Yeshua is both the True Image of God to man, and yet as the son of man, he is the True Image of man to God.

 

[Jim Parker]

I believe that the word/logos is an expression of Father YHWH

John 1:1 is God, not "an expression of God."

and that He used it to speak creation into existence (Psalm 33:6),but I do not believe the word/logos was a second person until it became flesh.

The Logos is not an "it". The Logos is God.
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (Jn 1:1)
In beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word
οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jn 1:2)
He (the same one, the Logos) was in the beginning with God.

Now that Yeshua has become the Word, he has become the expression of his Father.

"Yeshuah" did not "become the Word."
The Word, Who was with God from the beginning, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became Jesus.

BY the way, people whose native language is English use the name "Jesus", not "Yeshuah" unless they mistakenly think they sound more erudite by using the Hebrew name. Every English translation of the Bible uses "Jesus." I'm not convinced that you know better than every Bible translator since Tyndale as to what His name is in English.

 

[jocor]

I think the term "person" and it's meaning would have to be examined. To me, personhood is the highest comprehension of sentient existence that we mean to express. Or in other words, a rock is a thing and not regarded as high as a person. Therefore God is a at least a Person for lack of any higher term of definition. Consequently, to me, The Word, that created the heavens, the earth, and all the 'persons', such as Angels and Adam, who also have an emotional and sentient existence, would have to at least be a person in Spirit to begin with, since a thing couldn't conceive such persons higher than it's self.

I do not believe "The Word" created anything. The Father created everything (Isa 44:24) through His spoken words (Psalm 33:6) and through His Son (Col 1:16 ASV). The Father said, "Let their be lights in the firmament ...", then He created them with His mighty power.

That could be true from a hearers perspective. But from the original speakers perspective, the Spirit, or personhood of the Word, took on flesh and became Yeshua, a man.

John 1:14 says, "the logos became flesh", not "took on flesh".

 

[jocor]

BY the way, people whose native language is English use the name "Jesus", not "Yeshuah" unless they mistakenly think they sound more erudite by using the Hebrew name. Every English translation of the Bible uses "Jesus." I'm not convinced that you know better than every Bible translator since Tyndale as to what His name is in English.

Tyndale used "Iesus" as did the 1611 KJV. The "I" had the "Y" sound as in "Yeshua". Later translators gave it a hard "J" sound, thereby changing the sound of his name. "Jesus" is a conglomeration of Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English. Through poor attempts at transliterating the Hebrew "Yeshua" it became "Iesous" in Greek, "Iesus" in Latin, and "Jesus" in English. Therefore, any English Bible that uses "Jesus" is using a corrupted form of his name.

 

[childeye]

I do not believe "The Word" created anything. The Father created everything (Isa 44:24) through His spoken words (Psalm 33:6) and through His Son (Col 1:16 ASV). The Father said, "Let their be lights in the firmament ...", then He created them with His mighty power.

We're talking past one another here. That's why it is an issue of semantics. I agree that God created everything through His Word. The concept to be expressed, comes from within the Father, while the Word is the expression of the concept. Which brings us to a confusion that is purely semantically driven. Because it is true that the Logos didn't create anything, but it's also true that the Logos created everything conceived by God.

John 1:14 says, "the logos became flesh", not "took on flesh".

You are right of course. Hebrews 2:14.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

 

[OzSpen]

Tyndale used "Iesus" as did the 1611 KJV. The "I" had the "Y" sound as in "Yeshua". Later translators gave it a hard "J" sound, thereby changing the sound of his name. "Jesus" is a conglomeration of Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English. Through poor attempts at transliterating the Hebrew "Yeshua" it became "Iesous" in Greek, "Iesus" in Latin, and "Jesus" in English. Therefore, any English Bible that uses "Jesus" is using a corrupted form of his name.

Therefore, what would your uncorrupted English translation of Ἰησοῦς be?

 

[OzSpen]

We're talking past one another here. That's why it is an issue of semantics. I agree that God created everything through His Word. The concept to be expressed, comes from within the Father, while the Word is the expression of the concept. Which brings us to a confusion that is purely semantically driven. Because it is true that the Logos didn't create anything, but it's also true that the Logos created everything conceived by God.

childeye,

That is not what John 1:1-5 (ESV) states:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

These verses clearly affirm that the Word was not an inanimate 'concept' but was the person of God and the Word DID create everything. The language of this passage is that 'all things were made through him' (1:3). Who is the 'him'? He is the One whom the preceding 2 verses state was the creator, the Word who was God.

Verse 3 could not be clearer: 'All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made'.

We are not talking past each other. We must be accurate as to what these verses teach. The person of the Logos is not a concept. He is God. Col 1:16 (ESV) and Heb 1:2 (ESV) confirm the same information that by Jesus, the Son, everything was created.

Oz

 

[JLB]

I do not believe "The Word" created anything. The Father created everything (Isa 44:24) through His spoken words

So you just make up things out of thin air and completely ignore the Bible?

“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:10

16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17


JLB

 

[childeye]

childeye,

That is not what John 1:1-5 (ESV) states:


These verses clearly affirm that the Word was not an inanimate 'concept' but was the person of God and the Word DID create everything. The language of this passage is that 'all things were made through him' (1:3). Who is the 'him'? He is the One whom the preceding 2 verses state was the creator, the Word who was God.

Verse 3 could not be clearer: 'All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made'.

We are not talking past each other. We must be accurate as to what these verses teach. The person of the Logos is not a concept. He is God. Col 1:16 (ESV) and Heb 1:2 (ESV) confirm the same information that by Jesus, the Son, everything was created.

Oz

Oz, respectfully I think you have missed some of this conversation. Notice that you place the term 'inanimate' in front of concept and then argue against it, as if I had meant or said that the Word is an inanimate concept. However when I used the term 'concept', I was not referring to the Word, I was referring to that which is God's overall plan conceived in His mind.

As far as the Word being a Person, this is what I said in post #327 when asked why I capitalize the term 'Word' . I tend to capitalize 'Word' to indicate that it/he is Spirit, and therefore a person in that respect. I don't want people to be mistaking the Word with written scripture.

For what it's worth, here I elaborate further on why I feel that the Word has to be a Person:
To me, personhood is the highest comprehension of sentient existence that we mean to express. Or in other words, a rock is a thing and not regarded as high as a person. Therefore God is a at least a Person for lack of any higher term of definition.

Consequently, to me, The Word, that created the heavens, the earth, and all the 'persons', such as Angels and Adam, who also have an emotional and sentient existence, would have to at least be a person in Spirit to begin with, since a thing couldn't conceive such persons higher than it's self.

That doesn't necessarily mean God's Word was finished speaking or creating. For I also imagine that God would have to first create beings with ears to hear and minds to understand, before He could be heard and understood.

 

[brother Paul]

Yes....0ne ousia in three hypostases...that was their conclusion....in Latin hypostases became personnae which later became "persons"...essentially, substantially, th,ere is one God (who is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit)...the one and only God who is the Father, is the same one and only God that is the Word/Son, and is the exact same ONE and ONLY God that is also the Spirit

from a Hebrew thinker's perspective:

Primarily: One and ONLY ONE God (Yachid...numerically 1)
Secondlly: revealed Himself in three eternally distinct persons and the three are as one. A Unity (Echad...more than one as One)

The yachid God is one with His word (they are echad)...Adam and Eve became one flesh and bone echad)...and so on....

The Word was with God (echad) and IS God (the yachid God)

echad is from the root achad (to unify, a collective)

 

[childeye]

Yes....0ne ousia in three hypostases...that was their conclusion....in Latin hypostases became personnae which later became "persons"...essentially, substantially, th,ere is one God (who is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit)...the one and only God who is the Father, is the same one and only God that is the Word/Son, and is the exact same ONE and ONLY God that is also the Spirit

from a Hebrew thinker's perspective:

Primarily: One and ONLY ONE God (Yachid...numerically 1)
Secondlly: revealed Himself in three eternally distinct persons and the three are as one. A Unity (Echad...more than one as One)

The yachid God is one with His word (they are echad)...Adam and Eve became one flesh and bone echad)...and so on....

The Word was with God (echad) and IS God (the yachid God)

echad is from the root achad (to unify, a collective)

Very informative post. Thank you for the clarity.

 

[Jim Parker]

I think the term "person" and it's meaning would have to be examined. To me, personhood is the highest comprehension of sentient existence that we mean to express. Or in other words, a rock is a thing and not regarded as high as a person. Therefore God is a at least a Person for lack of any higher term of definition.

Word is the English rendering of the Greek word "LOGOS." (λόγος) It looses a lot in "translation" because there is not English word that has the same meaning as "LOGOS."

From Vine's Expository DIctionary: "Logos, 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."

From the Encyclopedia Britanica: "Logos, ( Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus."

The Bishops of the Great Ecumenical Councils used the word "HYPOSTASIS" which we translate into English as "person." Again, something is lost in "translation." The word hypostasis (Greek ὑπόστασις) means underlying state or underlying substance, and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. When used to refer to the three "persons" of the Holy Trinity, it includes the meaning that the three are all (the one) deity. When we refer to human persons, it includes the meaning that we are all creatures. (created beings)

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, respectfully I think you have missed some of this conversation. Notice that you place the term 'inanimate' in front of concept and then argue against it, as if I had meant or said that the Word is an inanimate concept. However when I used the term 'concept', I was not referring to the Word, I was referring to that which is God's overall plan conceived in His mind.

As far as the Word being a Person, this is what I said in post #327 when asked why I capitalize the term 'Word' . I tend to capitalize 'Word' to indicate that it/he is Spirit, and therefore a person in that respect. I don't want people to be mistaking the Word with written scripture.

For what it's worth, here I elaborate further on why I feel that the Word has to be a Person:
To me, personhood is the highest comprehension of sentient existence that we mean to express. Or in other words, a rock is a thing and not regarded as high as a person. Therefore God is a at least a Person for lack of any higher term of definition.

Consequently, to me, The Word, that created the heavens, the earth, and all the 'persons', such as Angels and Adam, who also have an emotional and sentient existence, would have to at least be a person in Spirit to begin with, since a thing couldn't conceive such persons higher than it's self.

That doesn't necessarily mean God's Word was finished speaking or creating. For I also imagine that God would have to first create beings with ears to hear and minds to understand, before He could be heard and understood.

childeye,

I am coming in late on the conversation, but you seem to be skewing something here with your statement that 'I tend to capitalize 'Word' to indicate that it/he is Spirit, and therefore a person in that respect'.

'The Word' cannot be an 'it' because he is the God-man, not an inanimate 'it'.

John 1:1 (ESV) tells us that 'the Word was God' but there is no identification of 'the Word' with Jesus in this verse.

That comes in John 1:14 (ESV), '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'. Thus, the Word is the Son who became flesh.

So, the Word of John 1:1 (ESV) and John 1:14 (ESV) is not the Spirit. The Word is the person of the God-man Jesus who became flesh when conceived and born in the flesh (cf. Gal 4:4).

Oz