GJohn 1.1 ἦν

[marks]

'Making yourself God' does not mean the speaker/audience actually believed he/Jesus was God at all. What utter nonsense. And you actually believe they thought this? He was equating himself as God's representative, the Son of God, NOT God.

No, they didn't believe what He said, just as neither do you. But they knew what He was claiming, though you deny it. That's why they kept wanting to kill Him.

Again . . . that is why they wanted to kill Jesus. "You, a man, make yourself God", and in their eyes that was blasphemy because they, like you, believed that God would not be a man. Therefore, stone to death the Man who makes Himself God.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Would Satan have been so determined to destroy the child through his servant Herod, if he had known that it was God Himself who had made Himself into a baby? Did he think that by killing the baby he could destroy God ?

You are asking me to speculate on Satan's motives? The mind of Satan? Do you think you know how Satan thinks? I'd daresay that would be presumption. You aren't even the same kind of being.

What we know from Scripture is that they didn't get it.

1 Corinthians 2:5-8 KJV
5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6) Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Much love!

 

[Johann]

OK more BS...

More "bull shit" @APAK?


When Jesus was confronted by the Jewish leaders in John 10:33, they accused Him, saying, "You, a mere man, claim to be God." They understood His words to mean that He was placing Himself on par with God. Jesus was not only claiming a unique relationship with the Father but was also identifying Himself with divine authority and nature—claims they saw as blasphemy from a human.

To clarify, the background to this statement comes from a heated exchange where Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). This phrase was unmistakably bold in its claim of unity with God, especially in the Jewish context, where God’s oneness was central to faith (Deuteronomy 6:4). In response, the Jewish leaders prepared to stone Him, accusing Him of blasphemy for making Himself equal with God—a severe offense under the Mosaic law.

In John 10:34-36, Jesus responds by pointing to Psalm 82:6, where God addresses Israel's judges with the term “gods” due to their high role of representing divine justice. By referring to this Psalm, Jesus does not diminish His own divine claims but highlights that if human judges could metaphorically be called “gods” for their authority, how much more appropriate is it for Him—the one "whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world"—to claim unity with God in truth. His response not only reveals their misunderstanding but emphasizes that He is indeed greater than any prophet or judge, fully embodying the presence of God.

The significance of this is profound. Jesus is not merely claiming a close relationship with God, as a prophet or a righteous person might; He’s speaking of a unity that implies shared divine essence. This bold self-identification shocked the religious leaders because, in Jewish monotheism, no human could claim such an identity without serious ramifications. By saying, “I and the Father are one,” Jesus declared a profound mystery of the Christian faith: His divine Sonship and unity with the Father, which the early church later described in terms of the Trinity.

So, when Jesus' opponents said, "You, a man, make yourself God," they clearly grasped the weight of His claims. In their eyes, Jesus was doing more than teaching about God; He was placing Himself on God’s level, which ultimately becomes a cornerstone for understanding why His followers saw Him as fully divine. His words, actions, and resurrection would later confirm this belief, as the early church recognized Him as both Lord and God, consistent with His own claims.

Personally I think the moderators should delete heretical, cultic believes infiltrating this Forum.

J.

 

[Aunty Jane]

People say that Jesus never said He was God, however, the Jews would have vehemently disagreed with that. They knew Exactly what Jesus meant by His words.

If you read Jesus words in John 10:31-36, in Greek, you will see exactly what he said…..
In English it reads……
”The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (theos) 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? (theos) 35 If he called them gods, (theos) to whom the word of God (HO THEOS) came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’ (HO THEOS)?

In Greek there is a word that is missing in the English translation…..on purpose….to give a false impression.
Highlighted above is the word ”theos” (god) but in answering the Jews Jesus did not say what the English translation infers. The missing word is “ho” which is the definite article in Greek grammar denoting the difference between Almighty God (capital “G”) “HO THEOS, and “a god” or “a divine mighty one one”. (theos)
They never said that he claimed to be “ho theos” but merely “theos”.….a divine “son of God (ho theos).

Referring to the judges in Israel as “gods” didn’t make them deities, but divinely authorized representatives of their God, Yahweh. Jesus too was a divinely appointed representative of his God and Father. All authority had to be given to him, (Matt 28:18) which would be unnecessary if he was God.

It is the same word used for any god, including satan. (2 Cor 4:4) When the definite article is used, it refers to Yahweh alone, especially when the true God is mentioned in the same passage as his son…..so when you read the Greek, look for the that little word “ho”, and it will become evident in Greek that which is not evident at all in English rendering.

The Jews had ceased uttering the divine name, and as the Greeks had no word for a nameless god, they added “ho” to identify the one God of the Jews.
We use the same reference when identifying a celebrity who might have the same name as a friend or neighbor. If it was Brad Pitt for example, and you were told that Brad Pitt would be at a gathering you were invited to….wouldn’t you ask….”not THE Brad Pitt”?

Using the same Greek grammar in John 1:1 and you will again see that the definite article is only used once, not twice.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (HO THEOS), and the Word was God (theos).”

You see a capital “G” in both instances in English but in Greek “ho” is plainly seen only in reference to the God that the Word was “with”. The second reference should have a small “g” so that the distinction between them is clear……in English it is not clear.…purposely confusing.

So nowadays someone who thinks Jesus would be a "freak show" if He were actually God denies that fact, but their denial doesn't change that fact.

I always love that saying, facts don't care about feelings.

"You, a man, make yourself God". Yes, Jesus said it, and they understood it.

In Greek…that is not what he said….and it’s true that “facts don’t care about feelings”….which run high on this topic. So what wins out?…..feelings or plain Scripture for those who care to do their own research…?

 

[Ritajanice]

Colossians 2​

1 For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, andfor them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my facein the flesh;
2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together inlove, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, tothe acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father,and of Christ;
3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk yein him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein* with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil* you through philosophy and vaindeceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of allprincipality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh bythe circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein* also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised himfrom the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgivenyou all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was againstus, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing itto his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly*, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or inrespect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbathdays:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humilityand worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by jointsand bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew* of wisdom in will worship,and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh

 

[Aunty Jane]

Personally I think the moderators should delete heretical, cultic believes infiltrating this Forum.

The Jews would have said the same thing about what Jesus taught…..stifling free speech is what the devil does. In a debate or Bible Study forum we should be able to speak the truth as we understand it without getting all het up about it. Talk it through Scripturally. If we disagree, then we disagree. There is no need for animosity.

I am surprised at your lack of research on this subject, J…especially in the Greek.

 

[Johann]

If you read Jesus words in John 10:31-36, in Greek, you will see exactly what he said…..
In English it reads……
”The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (theos) 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? (theos) 35 If he called them gods, (theos) to whom the word of God (HO THEOS) came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’ (HO THEOS)?

In Greek there is a word that is missing in the English translation…..on purpose….to give a false impression.
Highlighted above is the word ”theos” (god) but in answering the Jews Jesus did not say what the English translation infers. The missing word is “ho” which is the definite article in Greek grammar denoting the difference between Almighty God (capital “G”) “HO THEOS, and “a god” or “a divine mighty one one”. (theos)
They never said that he claimed to be “ho theos” but merely “theos”.….a divine “son of God (ho theos).

Referring to the judges in Israel as “gods” didn’t make them deities, but divinely authorized representatives of their God, Yahweh. Jesus too was a divinely appointed representative of his God and Father. All authority had to be given to him, (Matt 28:18) which would be unnecessary if he was God.

It is the same word used for any god, including satan. (2 Cor 4:4) When the definite article is used, it refers to Yahweh alone, especially when the true God is mentioned in the same passage as his son…..so when you read the Greek, look for the that little word “ho”, and it will become evident in Greek that which is not evident at all in English rendering.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of John 10:31-36 contains several significant misunderstandings. Here’s a corrective explanation based on the Greek text, proper contextual reading, and traditional Christian interpretation:

The Definite Article Argument ("Ho Theos" vs. "Theos"): The JW interpretation suggests that since Jesus is not called “ho theos” (with the definite article) here, He is claiming only to be “a god” rather than Almighty God. However, this line of reasoning misunderstands the Greek usage. In Koine Greek, the presence or absence of the definite article does not automatically imply a difference in identity or rank. For example, in John 1:1, “the Word was God” (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) also lacks the definite article with "theos," yet the traditional Christian understanding remains that it refers to Jesus as fully divine, not "a god" in a lesser sense.

Jesus' Use of Psalm 82:6: When Jesus refers to Psalm 82:6 ("I said, you are gods"), He points out that in the Old Testament, the term "gods" (elohim) was used for human judges or rulers whom God appointed to uphold His justice. Jesus uses this to show the irony in the accusation of blasphemy. If these human judges were called “gods” as representatives of God, then it should not be blasphemy for Jesus, the one sent and consecrated by the Father, to call Himself “the Son of God.” Rather than diminishing His claim, this argument reveals that Jesus is placing Himself on a unique, higher level than these human judges as the true Son, sharing in the Father’s divine authority and nature.

Context of John 10: In this passage, the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of blasphemy because He made Himself equal with God by saying, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). The crowd’s response shows they clearly understood Jesus’s claim to divinity; they were not upset because He called Himself merely a “son of God” in a generic sense but because He claimed an intimate, divine unity with the Father, which they considered blasphemous unless He truly was God.

Jesus’ Divine Authority and Identity: In John 10:36, Jesus identifies Himself as the one “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world,” not merely as a prophet or human representative but as one set apart for a divine mission. The phrase “I am the Son of God” in this context underscores His unique relationship with the Father. Moreover, throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus frequently identifies Himself with God in ways no prophet or judge ever did (e.g., John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am"), showing His self-understanding as sharing the Father’s divine nature.

Misinterpretation of Matthew 28:18: The JW interpretation points to Matthew 28:18, where Jesus states that “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” as evidence that Jesus is subordinate and cannot be God. However, this overlooks the doctrine of the Incarnation. In becoming human, Jesus voluntarily set aside certain privileges of divinity (Philippians 2:6-8). Post-resurrection, His authority is “given” by the Father, not because He lacks divine nature, but because He is fulfilling His redemptive mission, restoring what was rightfully His and fully reflecting God’s glory.

In summary, while the JW interpretation tries to reduce Jesus’s divinity by parsing Greek grammar, a complete reading of the context, linguistic usage, and New Testament theology supports that Jesus was making a claim to divine unity with the Father, not merely acting as a representative or created being. The early Christian church, based on teachings like these in John, understood Jesus as fully God in essence, though distinct in person from the Father.

J.

 

[Johann]

The Jews would have said the same thing about what Jesus taught…..stifling free speech is what the devil does. In a debate or Bible Study forum we should be able to speak the truth as we understand it without getting all het up about it. Talk it through Scripturally. If we disagree, then we disagree. There is no need for animosity.

I am surprised at your lack of research on this subject, J…especially in the Greek.

I have done a lot of research @Aunty Jane and Jesus is not Michael and not a created being. I am all for free speech, but not cultic, heretical doctrines.

J.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I have done a lot of research @Aunty Jane and Jesus is not Michael and not a created being. I am all for free speech, but not cultic, heretical doctrines.

J.

I was raised with your beliefs J….I consider all the teachings of “the early church” (the one formed by corrupt men, after the death of Jesus and his apostles, to be what they foretold to become “apostate”) these are “heretical and cultic”. The heretics call the truth heresy because it has been around so long and is so deeply ingrained that people dedicated to doctrines are held captive to them. The truth therefore seems like a lie, and the lie seems like the truth….who is the deceiver J? And how clever is he? (1 John 5:19)

 

[APAK]

More "bull shit" @APAK?


When Jesus was confronted by the Jewish leaders in John 10:33, they accused Him, saying, "You, a mere man, claim to be God." They understood His words to mean that He was placing Himself on par with God. Jesus was not only claiming a unique relationship with the Father but was also identifying Himself with divine authority and nature—claims they saw as blasphemy from a human.

To clarify, the background to this statement comes from a heated exchange where Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). This phrase was unmistakably bold in its claim of unity with God, especially in the Jewish context, where God’s oneness was central to faith (Deuteronomy 6:4). In response, the Jewish leaders prepared to stone Him, accusing Him of blasphemy for making Himself equal with God—a severe offense under the Mosaic law.

In John 10:34-36, Jesus responds by pointing to Psalm 82:6, where God addresses Israel's judges with the term “gods” due to their high role of representing divine justice. By referring to this Psalm, Jesus does not diminish His own divine claims but highlights that if human judges could metaphorically be called “gods” for their authority, how much more appropriate is it for Him—the one "whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world"—to claim unity with God in truth. His response not only reveals their misunderstanding but emphasizes that He is indeed greater than any prophet or judge, fully embodying the presence of God.

The significance of this is profound. Jesus is not merely claiming a close relationship with God, as a prophet or a righteous person might; He’s speaking of a unity that implies shared divine essence. This bold self-identification shocked the religious leaders because, in Jewish monotheism, no human could claim such an identity without serious ramifications. By saying, “I and the Father are one,” Jesus declared a profound mystery of the Christian faith: His divine Sonship and unity with the Father, which the early church later described in terms of the Trinity.

So, when Jesus' opponents said, "You, a man, make yourself God," they clearly grasped the weight of His claims. In their eyes, Jesus was doing more than teaching about God; He was placing Himself on God’s level, which ultimately becomes a cornerstone for understanding why His followers saw Him as fully divine. His words, actions, and resurrection would later confirm this belief, as the early church recognized Him as both Lord and God, consistent with His own claims.

Personally I think the moderators should delete heretical, cultic believes infiltrating this Forum.

J.

This is so unbelievable.....yes, Christ was on par indeed with his Father who is God Almighty and never took credit for it per scripture, and so he should not as he is not God. There is no logical or scriptural argument here.

And then you add in the concept of divinity here that you apparently do not understand at all. God Almighty is divine. His Son, Jesus had and has divine attributes or qualities. There is a big difference. And then you suddenly announce and take it for granted and speak of Jesus' claims for divinity. HE NEVER DOES now does he! There is no scripture to support your wishes...honesty please...

So if your spiritual life depended on it, do you really think the Jews or anyone today, actually thought he was really God, or really a designated 'god' as in being a special human being speaking for God Almighty, as his Son, who experienced his Spirit within him as he spoke and performed miracles?


You are all over the page Johann, without using any logical or scriptural flow in your response. Only a mixture of pulled out selected verses sprinkles in with your own opinions and desires. And that does not count for the truth now does it?

 

[face2face]

the imperfect verb hn in GJohn does explicitly state that Christ is a pre-existent being. He was "before" all things that were created.

Christ was in the Mind of the Father.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8

So everything in this creation and epoch has been done with Christ in mind.

Now if we took this literally you would have your man-god slain before this world began. You see the problem in not the Word of God its the words of men which you try to force on the text.

We saw that last night with Johann trying to force Deity on Colossians, when Paul's theme is pre-eminence.

And do you know how many times Johann admitted to do this?

Zero! Not once!

Do you know why?

For the same reason you will not admit Christ was in the Mind of the Father before His Father gave him life, first a natural life and the LIFE ETERNAL.

F2F

 

[APAK]

You are asking me to speculate on Satan's motives? The mind of Satan? Do you think you know how Satan thinks? I'd daresay that would be presumption. You aren't even the same kind of being.

What we know from Scripture is that they didn't get it.

1 Corinthians 2:5-8 KJV
5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6) Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Much love!

Cannot speculate Satan's motive aye...what a cop out marks.....so you cannot understand or will not answer this simple area of scripture.

You scurry and hide as usual when confronted with a simple concept. Afraid of getting boxed in....like in checkmate, and it's really is checkmate before the x-talk began

 

[face2face]

More "bull shit" @APAK?


When Jesus was confronted by the Jewish leaders in John 10:33, they accused Him, saying, "You, a mere man, claim to be God." They understood His words to mean that He was placing Himself on par with God. Jesus was not only claiming a unique relationship with the Father but was also identifying Himself with divine authority and nature—claims they saw as blasphemy from a human.

“I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” Jn 10:32.

Where is Jesus claiming to be God here?

To clarify, the background to this statement comes from a heated exchange where Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

One in purpose as Christ declare “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?

This phrase was unmistakably bold in its claim of unity with God, especially in the Jewish context, where God’s oneness was central to faith (Deuteronomy 6:4). In response, the Jewish leaders prepared to stone Him, accusing Him of blasphemy for making Himself equal with God—a severe offense under the Mosaic law.

Correct - unity of mind and purpose just as you have been called to have with Christ! Does that make you Christ?

In John 10:34-36, Jesus responds by pointing to Psalm 82:6, where God addresses Israel's judges with the term “gods” due to their high role of representing divine justice.

The Elohim are the Angels of God - Sons!

By referring to this Psalm, Jesus does not diminish His own divine claims but highlights that if human judges could metaphorically be called “gods” for their authority, how much more appropriate is it for Him—the one "whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world"—to claim unity with God in truth. His response not only reveals their misunderstanding but emphasizes that He is indeed greater than any prophet or judge, fully embodying the presence of God.

You can't see it J. You are blind trying to force your beliefs upon the text while totally ignoring what is being taught.

The significance of this is profound. Jesus is not merely claiming a close relationship with God, as a prophet or a righteous person might; He’s speaking of a unity that implies shared divine essence.

Wow wee Johann you just did it again! Added that little twist of error! Where in John 10 is there any reference to divine essence?

Phil 2:5 is what Christ is teaching!

Christ was showing them the Father in thought and action!

“I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?

This bold self-identification shocked the religious leaders because, in Jewish monotheism, no human could claim such an identity without serious ramifications. By saying, “I and the Father are one,”

Johann, Christ asks His Father to make us One with Christ and God - does that make you God?

Jesus declared a profound mystery of the Christian faith: His divine Sonship and unity with the Father, which the early church later described in terms of the Trinity.

And there we have it at last! The mystery...if you are patient, you know it always presents - those deceived Christians who believe in something so profound it cannot be known. The lie cannot be given meaning for its an irreconcilable teaching which man has forced on the Word.

For those reading this...there is no mystery in Scripture, there is however as the word mean "to close" referring to lips and tongue whispering of secrets which God has done with His Children.

The true Christ is a secret you are yet to discover...you might know something of his ways but who he is has been hidden from you behind a man made notion you call a mystery.

So, when Jesus' opponents said, "You, a man, make yourself God," they clearly grasped the weight of His claims.

You only read into the Word what you want to see Johann

"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." (John 5:19)

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30);

"My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

It's because you don't have a foundation of truth to work from - your house of knowledge is built on lies and every time you enter that house you come out with the same lies.

You are unable to provide a "whole complete" picture of Christ because you have made him something he is not - something others tried to force on him as well to their own hurt.

In their eyes, Jesus was doing more than teaching about God; He was placing Himself on God’s level, which ultimately becomes a cornerstone for understanding why His followers saw Him as fully divine. His words, actions, and resurrection would later confirm this belief, as the early church recognized Him as both Lord and God, consistent with His own claims.

Personally I think the moderators should delete heretical, cultic believes infiltrating this Forum.

J.

Now be honest Johann, when Jesus prayed "that they may be one, as we are." (John 17:11, 21)

Was this divine essence?
Was this Hypostasis?
Was this you becoming Deity?
Was this you becoming One in being?

These words require that the unity referred to, be also extended to the disciples. Obviously the unity is not that of the powers of the Godhead but unity resulting from sanctification through the word of God. (John 17:14, 17, 18).

But like Pre-eminence you looked for Deity
But now you look for Hypostasis and you miss Sanctification

How many truths will you miss Johann to your own hurt?

F2F

 

[marks]

Cannot speculate Satan's motive aye...what a cop out marks.....so you cannot understand or will not answer this simple area of scripture.

You scurry and hide as usual when confronted with a simple concept. Afraid of getting boxed in....like in checkmate, and it's really is checkmate before the x-talk began

The reality is that I stand with the Scripture and like usual you launch into your personal attack mode. No different from previous exchanges.

Understanding Satan's mind, right oh! I think you can only speculate.

Much love!

 

[St. SteVen]

1.1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
en archi hn o logos
in beginning was the Word

This is just a brief statement about the verb used here. It is the verb EIMI. It is in the Imperfect Tense. And en archi simply refers to the a beginning. Which beginning is contextually developed. Here the beginning is of the creation of all things. Now, the Imperfect verb here is ἦν hn. The Imperfect speaks of a time already existing before the beginning. So, the Logos existed before all things were created, meaning he was not created.

Below is the OP for a topic I launched on the subject.
I was developing some thoughts on the Logos as more than a person but a reason, or meaning.
Curious about your thoughts. Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I want to discuss the Logos as what it means before the Logos became flesh. (and dwelt among us)
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (John 1:1)

This tells three things about the Logos.
1) The Logos was from the beginning.
2) The Logos was with God.
3) The Logos was God.

Our knee-jerk thought is to jump to the meaning that Christ was the Logos.
Which is true by extension. But what was the Logos BEFORE the Logos became flesh?

Strong's Greek 3056 3056. logos Strong's Concordance logos: a word (as embodying an idea)

I want to focus on this "as embodying an idea" definition.
The Logos as embodying an idea, the logic, the reason, the meaning.

So, returning to the topic title question: Is the Logos meaningful, or meaningless?
Especially as it relates to all of humankind.

Was God's plan (Logos) from the beginning to be meaningful, or meaningless?
Or, more to the point, would the plan be meaningful to all of humankind, or only to a select minority?

Was the plan inclusive, or exclusive? (to the majority)
Can we rate an exclusive plan as good, or evil?

Meaningful = has value
Meaningless = has no value

Is the Logos meaningful, or meaningless?

Is the Logos meaningful, or meaningless? - Depends on your view of Logos.

I want to discuss the Logos as what it means before the Logos became flesh. (and dwelt among us) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (John 1:1) This tells three things about the Logos. 1) The Logos was from the beginning. 2) The Logos was with...

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[marks]

If you read Jesus words in John 10:31-36, in Greek, you will see exactly what he said…..
In English it reads……
”The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (theos) 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? (theos) 35 If he called them gods, (theos) to whom the word of God (HO THEOS) came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’ (HO THEOS)?

In Greek there is a word that is missing in the English translation…..on purpose….to give a false impression.
Highlighted above is the word ”theos” (god) but in answering the Jews Jesus did not say what the English translation infers. The missing word is “ho” which is the definite article in Greek grammar denoting the difference between Almighty God (capital “G”) “HO THEOS, and “a god” or “a divine mighty one one”. (theos)
They never said that he claimed to be “ho theos” but merely “theos”.….a divine “son of God (ho theos).

Referring to the judges in Israel as “gods” didn’t make them deities, but divinely authorized representatives of their God, Yahweh. Jesus too was a divinely appointed representative of his God and Father. All authority had to be given to him, (Matt 28:18) which would be unnecessary if he was God.

It is the same word used for any god, including satan. (2 Cor 4:4) When the definite article is used, it refers to Yahweh alone, especially when the true God is mentioned in the same passage as his son…..so when you read the Greek, look for the that little word “ho”, and it will become evident in Greek that which is not evident at all in English rendering.

The Jews had ceased uttering the divine name, and as the Greeks had no word for a nameless god, they added “ho” to identify the one God of the Jews.
We use the same reference when identifying a celebrity who might have the same name as a friend or neighbor. If it was Brad Pitt for example, and you were told that Brad Pitt would be at a gathering you were invited to….wouldn’t you ask….”not THE Brad Pitt”?

Using the same Greek grammar in John 1:1 and you will again see that the definite article is only used once, not twice.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (HO THEOS), and the Word was God (theos).”

You see a capital “G” in both instances in English but in Greek “ho” is plainly seen only in reference to the God that the Word was “with”. The second reference should have a small “g” so that the distinction between them is clear……in English it is not clear.…purposely confusing.

In Greek…that is not what he said….and it’s true that “facts don’t care about feelings”….which run high on this topic. So what wins out?…..feelings or plain Scripture for those who care to do their own research…?

The only Theos the Jews were considering it blasphemy to be making one's self equal to was YHWH.

Not everyone understands about the different ways the article is used in Koine Greek from English, so your argument may sound reasonable, however, the article is in fact used very differently.

But there's no need for an involved debate on ancient Greek, the simplicity is what I said, they had a problem with Him claiming to be, not "divine" (I said you are gods?), but their problem was Jesus making Himself to be YHWH Himself.

Much love!

 

[face2face]

I have done a lot of research @Aunty Jane and Jesus is not Michael and not a created being. I am all for free speech, but not cultic, heretical doctrines.

J.

Well Jesus is most definitely not Michael or Gabriel, but he is a created being!

How many times did Jesus die to sin? (6th time I've asked)

F2F

 

[face2face]

but their problem was Jesus making Himself to be YHWH Himself.

Much love!

but their problem is not what they believed in their minds but what you have in yours.

You put words in the Lords mouth to assume Christ was teaching a unity of substance; but the truth is rather he spoke of mutual agreement between the Father and himself, affirming, that, whatsoever he does, would be sanctioned by the power of the Father."

You force some perverted hybrid nature on Christ to satisfy your dogma when Christ is teaching sanctification.

Sad!

F2F

 

[APAK]

Below is the OP for a topic I launched on the subject.
I was developing some thoughts on the Logos as more than a person but a reason, or meaning.
Curious about your thoughts. Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I want to discuss the Logos as what it means before the Logos became flesh. (and dwelt among us)
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (John 1:1)

This tells three things about the Logos.
1) The Logos was from the beginning.
2) The Logos was with God.
3) The Logos was God.

Our knee-jerk thought is to jump to the meaning that Christ was the Logos.
Which is true by extension. But what was the Logos BEFORE the Logos became flesh?

Strong's Greek 3056 3056. logos Strong's Concordance logos: a word (as embodying an idea)

I want to focus on this "as embodying an idea" definition.
The Logos as embodying an idea, the logic, the reason, the meaning.

So, returning to the topic title question: Is the Logos meaningful, or meaningless?
Especially as it relates to all of humankind.

Was God's plan (Logos) from the beginning to be meaningful, or meaningless?
Or, more to the point, would the plan be meaningful to all of humankind, or only to a select minority?

Was the plan inclusive, or exclusive? (to the majority)
Can we rate an exclusive plan as good, or evil?

Meaningful = has value
Meaningless = has no value

Is the Logos meaningful, or meaningless?

Is the Logos meaningful, or meaningless? - Depends on your view of Logos.

I want to discuss the Logos as what it means before the Logos became flesh. (and dwelt among us) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (John 1:1) This tells three things about the Logos. 1) The Logos was from the beginning. 2) The Logos was with...

www.christianityboard.com

[

The earliest 'fathers' had it right until the late 2nd and 3rd century AD when pagan and Greek thought entered the picture and alters the nature of God and his Son forever, where before the 'logos' was clearly understood as the innate core attribute of the one God Almighty.

It was and is, his, alone, then today and tomorrow, regardless of his Son we have known as Jesus the Christ.

The issue then was not that God owned the logos as one being alone; they already knew this. It was which came or acted first, his logos or his active spirit composition or form. I take the former, his logos internally is center and always active and projects in his timing this logos as spirit into his creation, and into this world he created with his logos....

This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ at this point in the discussion. In 451 AD ignorant uninspired people ensured he/ Jesus was the centerpiece of God's core (logos). Quite astonishing, evil and dead wrong indeed

 

[face2face]

And how clever is he? (1 John 5:19)

It's not some evil mastermind behind all these false teachings but has always been in the mind of men to conjure up lies and deceive themselves and others.

guard yourselves from idols 1 Jn 5:21

The evil one eluded to is this...

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? Jer 17:9

And as the Lord taught you its out of this heart which proceeds evil thoughts and deeds

You really should study "personification" in the Bible.

It would clear up a lot of your misconceptions

F2F