"The Word Became Flesh"

[Arial]

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through hm, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

14. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of only the Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Though there are probably few who have ever read that cold, that is to say, without ever hearing anything about Christianity, having zero presuppositions, would recognize immediately that there is something dynamically different about Jesus. And those who have been born again, even if they have never heard a discussion of the Trinity, have no understanding of it, never even heard it declared that Jesus is God, I believe, would recognize the same thing. This Jesus is something beyond, something other than a mere created mortal. Even if they don't know what that is.

And here I must pause, and bring into the conversation another set of scriptures that I believe explains why some recognize this and others do not.

1 Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

What does Paul mean by the "natural" man? We find that in Eph 2:1-3 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience---among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Paul is writing to believers----Christians---and he is making a distinction between them and those who are not believers. Something that caused what they once were, as stated above, to become something different. He tells us in verses 4-10 But God, who being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ---by grace you have been saved---and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Something must happen in order for us to understand spiritual things---the Word of God---His message to us as to what He has done and is doing. What that is, we find Jesus telling us in John 3:3 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 5-8 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly. I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you 'You must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

In order to avoid making the post excessive in length, I will begin looking at John 1 separately.

 

[Arial]

Continued from Post #1

Though true historic, traditional Christians recognize the Trinity, even if they are not familiar with all the elements in it, they do recognize that Jesus is not, could not be a created being. And if asked to defend this are likely to point directly to John 1, for it is there that Jesus is most clearly and distinctly revealed as eternal and as God.

Those who deny His deity began playing with the word logos, in order to try and make it say something other than what it says. And though we do not believe these shenanigans, we often do not know how to address it. That is because it is something that requires historical knowledge, and is even more helpful if we understand that Christianity is historical, the redemption was historical, and every event in the Scripture regarding redemption, takes place historically in our world, and through covenant relationship. Redemption is a series of historical events that takes place in our world.

In John 1, John is directly addressing the Greek culture and their philosophy concerning logos, translated "word." The argument against "word" meaning Jesus and declaring Him to be God, is very much related to the Greek meaning, whereas John is relating it to the Hebrew word for "word" debar. It is debar that is translated in Greek as logos.

The Greek philosophers considered the logos to not have anything to do with history or historical events, but rather an underlying rational principle that gives stability and order to our world. To the Greek the logos was the unchanging essence of reality. To the Hebrew debar (translated logos or "word")was powerful to affect and effect reality. For the Hebrew the word was historical. For the Greek it was mental---intellectual. Meaning could be found only in intellectual pursuit of overcoming our baser appetites and desire, transcending history.

John 1 turns that idea on its head. In Christ who was with God and was God, God fulfilled His covenant promise. I will be your God, and you will be my people. His promise, God with you. The God who said He would come to us in the OT. He shows God Himself entering into our history in a historical event, so much so that He takes on flesh, and lives among us, eating and drinking with us, growing tired, experiencing the full range of human emotion. And as He does this He reveals God in a way He had never before been revealed. All so He could go to the cross and substitute Himself in our place and defeat our enemy, sin and death, that we might be reconciled to the God we so treacherously betrayed.

The logos, John declares, is not the impersonal principle of order that could never enter physically into the world. This Word is a historical person, visible, datable, historic. The Word, us not simply a matter of speech but of accomplishment. John was placing the Greek logos into the context of a historical event, for a Hellenistic community. God entered completely into the affairs of the world when He became flesh and and dwelt among us, just as He promised in the OT that He would. To redeem a people for Himself from among men, just as He promised He would. Jesus was to the Hebrews, just as they expected Him to be, from the Law and Prophets. The God who comes to be with His people.

 

[Runningman]

The "word" isn't a he but an it throughout 99% of the New Testament and all o the Old Testament. There is scarcely a direct reference to the "word" being a he, aside from John 1. This makes John 1 anomalous.

The "word" is demonstrably not Jesus where Jesus and the word are talked about in the same context. See 1 John 1:1-3. Revelation 1:2, 9, Revelation 20:4.

The word we are talking about is the Greek word logos and it's used throughout the New Testament and Septuagint. Logos doesn't mean Jesus or God or Son, etc. It refers to words, speaking, etc. Words aren't a literal person. This is called personification of a non-person thing. For example, a non-person thing like wisdom isn't a literal woman, contrary to what Proverbs 8 & 9 say.

This is why 1 John 1:1-3 says that in the beginning the Word of Life was an it, a thing, that manifested in a man. That means Jesus isn't literally the word of God, but rather the word of God was in him. The pre-existence of Jesus was in the foreknowledge of God, hence the "word" became flesh.

Furthermore, John demonstrably didn't even believe Jesus is God along with the rest of the disciples. In Acts 4:23-27, John and Peter prayed together to the Sovereign Lord, the Father, while referring to Jesus as His servant.

The Greek words of John 1:1 support the word being either a god or something godly in contradistinction to the definitive God also referenced in the same verse.

Jesus as a pre-existent being known as "God the Word" isn't a biblically viable doctrine. Trinitarians tried to bamboozle us many years ago, but they were caught red handed. One of the most famous forgeries of the New Testament, known as the Comma Johanneum, found in what was previously 1 John 5:7 has been removed from mostly all modern Bibles.

 

[CrowCross]

The pre-existence of Jesus was in the foreknowledge of God, hence the "word" became flesh.

This is very Mormon like. In fact it sounds like it was borrowed from the Mormons.
It appears the Mormon cult isn't the only cult that corners the market on this idea.

Furthermore, John demonstrably didn't even believe Jesus is God along with the rest of the disciples

Thomas would disagree.

 

[Runningman]

This is very Mormon like. In fact it sounds like it was borrowed from the Mormons.
It appears the Mormon cult isn't the only cult that corners the market on this idea.

Thomas would disagree.

Translation @CrowCross couldn't actually rebuttal or refute anything I said so he made a strawman instead.

 

[Runningman]

Renowned Trinitarian Heinrich Meyer said of John 1:1 in his New Testament Commentary that the "Word" was created, is personified, and is poetic. He called the Word an it as the rest of the Bible says of the logos.

"The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the revelation of Himself made in creation by God, who is in His own nature hidden, became the root of the Logos idea. The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy."

 

[Arial]

The "word" isn't a he but an it throughout 99% of the New Testament and all o the Old Testament. There is scarcely a direct reference to the "word" being a he, aside from John 1. This makes John 1 anomalous.

Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant to the meaning of John 1, and an invalid way of interpretation, it does not make John 1 anomalous. It makes John 1 to be talking about and saying what John 1 is about and saying. It has nothing at all to do with other uses of the word "word" in the Bible. We don't find out what he means by determining how "word" is most often used in the Bible. The "it" you say it is is how the Greeks thought of as the logos. As the OP explained. DId you actually read the OP or are you just presenting the Unitarian interpretation without even knowing what was said in the OP? That is just a "she said" "he said". What needs to be done if one wants to support their view is to prove that what the other side said is wrong and why. You would have to prove that that John was not addressing the Greek philosophical idea of an impersonal force that could never enter into history, therefore was not historical, and the only way for man to overcome all the evils of history that are evident, is to improve ourselves and deny the value of history.

You would have to prove that John was not saying "You are wrong. The logos is God, a personal being, eternal and self existent, who created all things, governs all things, holds all things together, therefore creates our history, governs our history, and so enters into our history as to become flesh like us, and die in our place for those who believe, to deliver us and His creation from evil.

The word we are talking about is the Greek word logos and it's used throughout the New Testament and Septuagint. Logos doesn't mean Jesus or God or Son, etc. It refers to words, speaking, etc. Words aren't a literal person. This is called personification of a non-person thing. For example, a non-person thing like wisdom isn't a literal woman, contrary to what Proverbs 8 & 9 say.

That is not what logos referred to in the Greek. See above. You are using the definition of "word" in the English and going from there without considering the historic cultural use in John's day. John was clarifying that very issue. Not by the English use of "word" but what the Greeks thought the logos was. He says in effect, "No, you are wrong. This is the logos and places it right back to Gen 1. "In the beginning was the debar (the Hebrew word translated in Greek as logos). Debar to the Hebrew was not merely words but action, power. Not just speaking, but active historically.

This is why 1 John 1:1-3 says that in the beginning the Word of Life was an it, a thing, that manifested in a man. That means Jesus isn't literally the word of God, but rather the word of God was in him. The pre-existence of Jesus was in the foreknowledge of God, hence the "word" became flesh.

1 John 1:1-3 says exactly the opposite of what you say it says. There is no "it" about the Word of Life. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life---the life was manifest, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us---that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us;and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

John is stressing the fact that what he is saying is true and he is being absolutely consistent with what he said in John 1--uses the very same words. The Word of life, became a man. We saw Him, we talked to Him, our hands touched Him, we heard Him. This is the action of God entering into our history, just as He promised in the Law and the Prophets that He would. Hosea 6:1-3 Come, let's return to the Lord. For He has torn us, but He will heal us: He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before Him. So let's learn, let's press on to know the Lord. His appearance is as sure as the dawn: And He will come to us like the rain, as the spring rain waters the earth.

There is nothing in the 1 John passage that indicates that John is merely saying the word of God was in Him. Even if one has already determined that how they use the word "word" is the same way it is always used and that John was also using as spoken words in John 1, it is not there. As to His pre-existence being merely in the foreknowledge of God---that is not actually existence.

Furthermore, John demonstrably didn't even believe Jesus is God along with the rest of the disciples. In Acts 4:23-27, John and Peter prayed together to the Sovereign Lord, the Father, while referring to Jesus as His servant.

That presumes that John believed as you do. John believed the Law and the Prophets, that declare who Messiah is. It is in them that He learns that Messiah would be God (Is 9 for example) and that He would come as a servant. They recognized Jesus as that servant. "Came as." If He came as something, He must have also been something other than what He came as.

The Greek words of John 1:1 support the word being either a god or something godly in contradistinction to the definitive God also referenced in the same verse.

The Greeks had many gods, and not a single one of them ever did anything. And they did not consider logos to be a god but a principle. The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob did things, as opposed to their gods, and is this God, John teaches who is the logos the one who is not a governing principle but a governing being, and the source of everything that is, and who acts within what we see historically and the natural. The Word is who He is. God and His word cannot be separated. And His Word became flesh and dwelt among is. Emanuel. God WITH us. Historically and visibly and datable.

Jesus as a pre-existent being known as "God the Word" isn't a biblically viable doctrine. Trinitarians tried to bamboozle us many years ago, but they were caught red handed. One of the most famous forgeries of the New Testament, known as the Comma Johanneum, found in what was previously 1 John 5:7 has been removed from mostly all modern Bibles.

Red herring.

 

[Arial]

Translation @CrowCross couldn't actually rebuttal or refute anything I said so he made a strawman instead.

Responded to with ad hominem. I will not allow this thread to go that route so don't start.

 

[Arial]

Renowned Trinitarian Heinrich Meyer said of John 1:1 in his New Testament Commentary that the "Word" was created, is personified, and is poetic. He called the Word an it as the rest of the Bible says of the logos.

"The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the revelation of Himself made in creation by God, who is in His own nature hidden, became the root of the Logos idea. The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy."

Appeal to authority fallacy. Just because one person says something, that does not make it true. Meyer's commentary on the NT contains many volumes, so it is difficult to even pin down with one quote the entirety of what he is saying. This particular passage however shows no evidence of taking any historic cultural elements that were in play at the time of Johns writing into account. Something that is very necessary it determining exactly what the writer is saying.

 

[Fred]

Appeal to authority fallacy. Just because one person says something, that does not make it true. Meyer's commentary on the NT contains many volumes, so it is difficult to even pin down with one quote the entirety of what he is saying. This particular passage however shows no evidence of taking any historic cultural elements that were in play at the time of Johns writing into account. Something that is very necessary it determining exactly what the writer is saying.

Runningman took Meyer totally out of context. Meyer was discussing how the Logos was understood at a certain time, but then later on when John wrote about the Logos notice what Meyer writes:

"As, therefore, by θεός without the article, John neither desires to indicate, on the, one hand, identity of Person with the Father; nor yet, on the other, any lower nature than that which God Himself possesses: so his doctrine of the Logos is definitely distinguished from that of Philo..therefore, is not to be explained by help of Philo, nor is it to be converted into a general qualitative idea “ divine ,” “ God-like ” (B. Crusius), which deprives the expression of the precision which, especially considering the strict monotheism of the N. T. (in John, see in particular John 17:3, it must possess, owing to the conception of the personal Logos as a divine being.

John 1 - Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

John 1, Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary focuses on the Greek text, using an abundance of sources and authors to illustrate meaning

www.studylight.org

The boldface and underlined above are mine.


Concerning John 1:14 Meyer wrote this concerning the Logos (the boldface is mine):
The ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο is a definite act in the consummation of His history. He became flesh, i.e . a corporeal material being, visible and tangible (1 John 1:2), which He was not before, and by which it is self-evident that the human mode of existence in which He appeared, which we have in the person of Jesus, and which was known to the reader, is intended...a really corporeal personality, i.e . the God-man Jesus Christ

 

[Arial]

Runningman took Meyer totally out of context. Meyer was discussing how the Logos was understood at a certain time, but then later on when John wrote about the Logos notice what Meyer writes:

"As, therefore, by θεός without the article, John neither desires to indicate, on the, one hand, identity of Person with the Father; nor yet, on the other, any lower nature than that which God Himself possesses: so his doctrine of the Logos is definitely distinguished from that of Philo..therefore, is not to be explained by help of Philo, nor is it to be converted into a general qualitative idea “ divine ,” “ God-like ” (B. Crusius), which deprives the expression of the precision which, especially considering the strict monotheism of the N. T. (in John, see in particular John 17:3, it must possess, owing to the conception of the personal Logos as a divine being.

John 1 - Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

John 1, Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary focuses on the Greek text, using an abundance of sources and authors to illustrate meaning

www.studylight.org

The boldface and underlined above are mine.


Concerning John 1:14 Meyer wrote this concerning the Logos:
The ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο is a definite act in the consummation of His history. He became flesh, i.e . a corporeal material being, visible and tangible (1 John 1:2), which He was not before, and by which it is self-evident that the human mode of existence in which He appeared, which we have in the person of Jesus, and which was known to the reader, is intended.

Very good. I had a suspicion, given that Meyer is a Trinitarian, that what was quoted by @Runningman was simply pulled from its context and used as a weapon. Thanks for sorting that out and bringing to our attention with the facts. Those who do not believe in the deity of Christ base every one of their arguments on doing exactly the same thing as Runningman did with Meyer, with the Bible.

 

[CrowCross]

Translation @CrowCross couldn't actually rebuttal or refute anything I said so he made a strawman instead.

Like you the Mormons teach....Jesus was eternal, that is in the "mind" of their god the father. This eternal "thought" that was Jesus came to fruition. The Mormons often sum this up as..... "information".

You belong to a cult RM.

 

[CrowCross]

Translation @CrowCross couldn't actually rebuttal or refute anything I said so he made a strawman instead.

Part 2....let me ask you this then...prior to the incarnation of Jesus, born of Mary, the Word that became flesh....what/who was the pre-incarnate Jesus?

So, to keep you from calling me a "strawman"....lay it out for us. Answer the question. One answer I'll take from you is...I don't know". But then again you seem to be an expert on the topic, so, who/what was Jesus prior to His birth?

 

[Runningman]

Like you the Mormons teach....Jesus was eternal, that is in the "mind" of their god the father. This eternal "thought" that was Jesus came to fruition. The Mormons often sum this up as..... "information".

You belong to a cult RM.

Part 2....let me ask you this then...prior to the incarnation of Jesus, born of Mary, the Word that became flesh....what/who was the pre-incarnate Jesus?

So, to keep you from calling me a "strawman"....lay it out for us. Answer the question. One answer I'll take from you is...I don't know". But then again you seem to be an expert on the topic, so, who/what was Jesus prior to His birth?

You're asking me about Mormons. You should know full well I am not a Mormon. I think the OP of this thread would greatly appreciate it if you would stay on topic. Page 1 is way too soon to start derailing a thread. My comments have been directly related to the OP.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman took Meyer totally out of context. Meyer was discussing how the Logos was understood at a certain time, but then later on when John wrote about the Logos notice what Meyer writes:

"As, therefore, by θεός without the article, John neither desires to indicate, on the, one hand, identity of Person with the Father; nor yet, on the other, any lower nature than that which God Himself possesses: so his doctrine of the Logos is definitely distinguished from that of Philo..therefore, is not to be explained by help of Philo, nor is it to be converted into a general qualitative idea “ divine ,” “ God-like ” (B. Crusius), which deprives the expression of the precision which, especially considering the strict monotheism of the N. T. (in John, see in particular John 17:3, it must possess, owing to the conception of the personal Logos as a divine being.

John 1 - Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

John 1, Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary focuses on the Greek text, using an abundance of sources and authors to illustrate meaning

www.studylight.org

The boldface and underlined above are mine.


Concerning John 1:14 Meyer wrote this concerning the Logos (the boldface is mine):
The ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο is a definite act in the consummation of His history. He became flesh, i.e . a corporeal material being, visible and tangible (1 John 1:2), which He was not before, and by which it is self-evident that the human mode of existence in which He appeared, which we have in the person of Jesus, and which was known to the reader, is intended...a really corporeal personality, i.e . the God-man Jesus Christ

You have misrepresented Meyer. The part you quoted from his commentary isn't his commentary. Right after what you quoted, he sources where he got it from. Those aren't his views. Yet you seemed to have conveniently left that part out.

He got what you quoted from here: Comp. Schmid, bibl. Theol . II. 370. On Sam. Crell’s conjecture ( Artemonii initium ev. Joh. ex antiquitate eccl. restitut . 1726) that θεοῦ is a mere anti-trinitarian invention, see Bengel, Appar. crit . p. 214 ff.

What Meyer personally believes about the logos is that it's a thing, the divine expression of God, not a literal person. As he said, it's poetry and personification of a non-person thing.

Meyer, a well-respected, studied, and highly-qualified Trinitarian and Greek expert disagrees with you.

"The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the revelation of Himself made in creation by God, who is in His own nature hidden, became the root of the Logos idea. The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy."

 

[Runningman]

Very good. I had a suspicion, given that Meyer is a Trinitarian, that what was quoted by @Runningman was simply pulled from its context and used as a weapon. Thanks for sorting that out and bringing to our attention with the facts. Those who do not believe in the deity of Christ base every one of their arguments on doing exactly the same thing as Runningman did with Meyer, with the Bible.

You might want to check @Fred's source because he completely missed the mark.

 

[Runningman]

Appeal to authority fallacy. Just because one person says something, that does not make it true. Meyer's commentary on the NT contains many volumes, so it is difficult to even pin down with one quote the entirety of what he is saying. This particular passage however shows no evidence of taking any historic cultural elements that were in play at the time of Johns writing into account. Something that is very necessary it determining exactly what the writer is saying.

It's an appeal to a well-respected Trinitarian commentator who disagrees with you. On Meyer's belief that the Word is an it, a thing, not a person, not God, I agree with him completely on this point and I applaud him for his honesty.

 

[Arial]

It's an appeal to a well-respected Trinitarian commentator who disagrees with you. On Meyer's belief that the Word is an it, a thing, not a person, not God, I agree with him completely on this point and I applaud him for his honesty.

He doesn't agree with you. You simply pulled it out of context. See post # 10.

 

[Mr GLee]

Jesus as a pre-existent being known as "God the Word" isn't a biblically viable doctrine. Trinitarians tried to bamboozle us many years ago, but they were caught red handed. One of the most famous forgeries of the New Testament, known as the Comma Johanneum, found in what was previously 1 John 5:7 has been removed from mostly all modern Bibles.

Thanks. . Yes, not the word became flesh. The word "Let there be" created flesh You could say the invisible word of God became visible by the flesh. like magic children paint add water.. good job

Not of the flesh, the dying creatures. God has shown us, some heed the warning others worship the creature, Jesus the Son of man above the Father our faithful Creator the unseen head of the church

Romans1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Roman 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[Mr GLee]

It's an appeal to a well-respected Trinitarian commentator who disagrees with you. On Meyer's belief that the Word is an it, a thing, not a person, not God, I agree with him completely on this point and I applaud him for his honesty.

Catholicism performs that kind of ideology with Peter. The word it used in both places represents the key that the gates of hell could never prevail against the gospel key. Not Peter a dying flesh and blood person. His key locked it . Not as you will father. But as I will.

Mathew 16:17-18 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.