More on GJohn 1.1

[KUWN]

This is a bit long, most will not read this, but it posted it for the few who will.

I offered the following paraphrase for GJohn 1:1 in my previous post:

“In the beginning, a beginning that precedes the creation of all things, the Word was already in existence, and hence, by virtue of existing PRIOR TO the creation of all things, this Word, known as Jesus, must of necessity be God, and not only that, but the Word (Jesus, who we now know is God) was WITH God, which would require there being TWO beings, since one is WITH or IN THE PRESENCE OF the other.”

Although this rendition is a bit verbose, it only scratches the proverbial surface of the first verse of the Gospel of John. I would like to follow up my previous post with additional comments on this verse.

I mentioned that the word translated “beginning” is ARCHi. It is no coincidence that it resembles Archeology, the study of antiquity or ancient times. But more importantly, what should be noted here is how ARCHi in ancient Greek philosophy denoted the investigation into the “first cause” of all physical and created things, the universe as a whole.

John is a master, or I should perhaps say a genius, when it comes to using words and phrases that are capable of multiple meanings, and using them because he wants to bring out more than one meaning at a time. So, EN ARCHi references a beginning, a beginning that we find out is concerned with the FIRST CAUSE of all that is created.

We noted earlier that the verb HN was Imperfect. So, John has diverted his readers’ attention to a period of time PRIOR TO this beginning. We saw that this beginning was the beginning of creation, the creation of all things. Hence, PRIOR TO the creation of all things, Jesus was in existence. A statement we noted was utter blasphemy to any Jew.

When we are told that Jesus created all things, we are informed as to whom it was that created the angels. So, not only did Jesus exist PRIOR TO the creation of this universe, he also existed PRIOR TO the creation of angels. In other words, Jesus pre-existed all created things and beings. Hence, Jesus himself was not created, and hence, Jesus was none other than God himself.

Jesus is referred to here as hO LOGOS, translated “the Word.” Again, this word is loaded with implications to first century readers, Jews and Greeks alike.
For the Greek, the LOGOS was believed to be the “eternal Reason.” That is, LOGOS was believed to be the Rational Principle behind the material/physical world. The Greek philosophers viewed this Rational Mind behind the created universe as having creative powers, but did not present the LOGOS as a being/individual of some kind. John sets the record straight, with little more than the nudging of a pen.

However, for the Jew, the LOGOS was much more. To the Jew, he would recall such expressions as “Thus SAYS the Lord…” And the Lord then spoke his word. His LOGOS/word was understood as his self-expression or self-revelation. Jesus as the LOGOS reveals God; he “communicates” who and what God is to us. Note these words in the Old Testament, Psalm 33:

“By the Lord’s word the heavens were made;

by a mere word from his mouth all the stars in the sky were created.”

That John presents Jesus as the LOGOS/Word is to give Jesus a unique place. For it was by God’s (usually when the word God is used without any qualifiers, it is a reference to God the Father) LOGOS that he created the heavens, which were created BEFORE angels were. Much more can be said about this expression, LOGOS, but I want to spend more time elsewhere.

Here’s what we are examining now:

EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS
KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON
KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS

Roughly translated:

“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.”

I mentioned last time that PROS (WITH or IN THE PRESENCE OF) is a strong preposition denoting closeness or intimacy. Had John used PRO, the idea would have been that the Word “was [standing] before God.” But PROS is used to get even closer than “in front of.” We might even go so far, and legitimately so, by saying that “the Word was right beside God, in his bosom.”

Now here is where I want to stretch your thinking. When we think of “God,” we think of God THE FATHER, or God THE SON, or God the HOLY SPIRIT. But these modifiers to God were not always the case. These modifiers were added when the three members of the Trinity assumed different ROLES toward their creation.

Let me crudely illustrate it as follows:

AFTER creation you have: God-F, God-S, and God-HS (God-F is short for God the Father, and so on.)

BEFORE (or, without) creation you had: G, G, and G

And let me go a quantum step further and add this twist:

AFTER creation you have: (note the hierarchical order)

1. God-F
2. God-S
3. God-HS

This is something I have developed over the years. You won’t find this anywhere else, at least not that I am aware of. But I think it is critical to understand. Perhaps one example as to why will suffice for now:

There is a very controversial statement in this gospel that has confused many a folk. I practically only need to quote this verse here to illustrate my point, but I’ll add a few comments below. Here’s the verse, Jesus is talking to his disciples:

“You heard me say to you, ‘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, because the Father is greater than I am.”

That final statement is the controversial one. If Jesus is God and the Father is God, how can the Father be “greater than” the Son?

continues....

 

[MonoBiblical]

This is a bit long, most will not read this, but it posted it for the few who will.

I offered the following paraphrase for GJohn 1:1 in my previous post:

“In the beginning, a beginning that precedes the creation of all things, the Word was already in existence, and hence, by virtue of existing PRIOR TO the creation of all things, this Word, known as Jesus, must of necessity be God, and not only that, but the Word (Jesus, who we now know is God) was WITH God, which would require there being TWO beings, since one is WITH or IN THE PRESENCE OF the other.”

Although this rendition is a bit verbose, it only scratches the proverbial surface of the first verse of the Gospel of John. I would like to follow up my previous post with additional comments on this verse.

I mentioned that the word translated “beginning” is ARCHi. It is no coincidence that it resembles Archeology, the study of antiquity or ancient times. But more importantly, what should be noted here is how ARCHi in ancient Greek philosophy denoted the investigation into the “first cause” of all physical and created things, the universe as a whole.

John is a master, or I should perhaps say a genius, when it comes to using words and phrases that are capable of multiple meanings, and using them because he wants to bring out more than one meaning at a time. So, EN ARCHi references a beginning, a beginning that we find out is concerned with the FIRST CAUSE of all that is created.

We noted earlier that the verb HN was Imperfect. So, John has diverted his readers’ attention to a period of time PRIOR TO this beginning. We saw that this beginning was the beginning of creation, the creation of all things. Hence, PRIOR TO the creation of all things, Jesus was in existence. A statement we noted was utter blasphemy to any Jew.

When we are told that Jesus created all things, we are informed as to whom it was that created the angels. So, not only did Jesus exist PRIOR TO the creation of this universe, he also existed PRIOR TO the creation of angels. In other words, Jesus pre-existed all created things and beings. Hence, Jesus himself was not created, and hence, Jesus was none other than God himself.

Jesus is referred to here as hO LOGOS, translated “the Word.” Again, this word is loaded with implications to first century readers, Jews and Greeks alike.
For the Greek, the LOGOS was believed to be the “eternal Reason.” That is, LOGOS was believed to be the Rational Principle behind the material/physical world. The Greek philosophers viewed this Rational Mind behind the created universe as having creative powers, but did not present the LOGOS as a being/individual of some kind. John sets the record straight, with little more than the nudging of a pen.

However, for the Jew, the LOGOS was much more. To the Jew, he would recall such expressions as “Thus SAYS the Lord…” And the Lord then spoke his word. His LOGOS/word was understood as his self-expression or self-revelation. Jesus as the LOGOS reveals God; he “communicates” who and what God is to us. Note these words in the Old Testament, Psalm 33:

“By the Lord’s word the heavens were made;

by a mere word from his mouth all the stars in the sky were created.”

That John presents Jesus as the LOGOS/Word is to give Jesus a unique place. For it was by God’s (usually when the word God is used without any qualifiers, it is a reference to God the Father) LOGOS that he created the heavens, which were created BEFORE angels were. Much more can be said about this expression, LOGOS, but I want to spend more time elsewhere.

Here’s what we are examining now:

EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS
KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON
KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS

Roughly translated:

“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.”

I mentioned last time that PROS (WITH or IN THE PRESENCE OF) is a strong preposition denoting closeness or intimacy. Had John used PRO, the idea would have been that the Word “was [standing] before God.” But PROS is used to get even closer than “in front of.” We might even go so far, and legitimately so, by saying that “the Word was right beside God, in his bosom.”

Now here is where I want to stretch your thinking. When we think of “God,” we think of God THE FATHER, or God THE SON, or God the HOLY SPIRIT. But these modifiers to God were not always the case. These modifiers were added when the three members of the Trinity assumed different ROLES toward their creation.

Let me crudely illustrate it as follows:

AFTER creation you have: God-F, God-S, and God-HS (God-F is short for God the Father, and so on.)

BEFORE (or, without) creation you had: G, G, and G

And let me go a quantum step further and add this twist:

AFTER creation you have: (note the hierarchical order)

1. God-F
2. God-S
3. God-HS

This is something I have developed over the years. You won’t find this anywhere else, at least not that I am aware of. But I think it is critical to understand. Perhaps one example as to why will suffice for now:

There is a very controversial statement in this gospel that has confused many a folk. I practically only need to quote this verse here to illustrate my point, but I’ll add a few comments below. Here’s the verse, Jesus is talking to his disciples:

“You heard me say to you, ‘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, because the Father is greater than I am.”

That final statement is the controversial one. If Jesus is God and the Father is God, how can the Father be “greater than” the Son?

continues....

Hast thou considered the possibility that the Greek article is an indefinite article?

 

[RedFan]

Hast thou considered the possibility that the Greek article is an indefinite article?

As far as I know, Greek has no indefinite article. That has to be pulled out of the sentence's context.

 

[MonoBiblical]

As far as I know, Greek has no indefinite article. That has to be pulled out of the sentence's context.

But all human names are definite without it, same with Hebrew including the word Adam.

 

[APAK]

@KUWN ..drawn from your OP...
Hello, so how is Jesus the Christ, himself, become the 'logos' again?

And how does the grammatical definition of 'logos' change to now accommodate a person, and the only time in scripture, in John's Gospel?

thx

 

[MonoBiblical]

@KUWN ..drawn from your OP...
Hello, so how is Jesus the Christ, himself, become the 'logos' again?

And how does the grammatical definition of 'logos' change to now accommodate a person, and the only time in scripture, in John's Gospel?

thx

A worder is the definition of the Greek word LOGOS. It can person or a word on a piece of paper. The masculine -OS form means the word is an actor, not a receiver of action.

 

[APAK]

A worder is the definition of the Greek word LOGOS. It can person or a word on a piece of paper. The masculine -OS form means the word is an actor, not a receiver of action.

I do not exactly understand your post.

I do know though that in Greek as in other languages of today like in Spanish and French, articles and things are 'genderized'....male/female. This does not ever excuse them to become human gendered. e.g. a table -( le tableau) in French is an 'it' and never becomes a 'he' even though it is masculine....

Likewise, 'logos' gender is masculine, a 'he' although it's still an IT in reality. And before the 1600s in scripture of John 1, the 'It' for logos was never personified as an 'he.' It was left as an 'it', that made the world. Although to cause more confusion, if the 'he' represented the key core attribute of God, then converting it from an 'it' to 'he' is ok.

 

[KUWN]

@KUWN ..drawn from your OP...
Hello, so how is Jesus the Christ, himself, become the 'logos' again?

And how does the grammatical definition of 'logos' change to now accommodate a person, and the only time in scripture, in John's Gospel?

thx

I am sorry but I don't quite understand your questions

 

[MonoBiblical]

@APAK, gender in Hebrew and Greek is not by just male and female. Masculine words have a repetitive action from the noun. An informer is something that consistently informers, thus, it is masculine. An informee receives the action and is feminine. The difference is much more than male and female.

 

[KUWN]

@APAK, gender in Hebrew and Greek is not by just male and female. Masculine words have a repetitive action from the noun. An informer is something that consistently informers, thus, it is masculine. An informee receives the action and is feminine. The difference is much more than male and female.

No, this is incorrect. The Greek genders do not have these properties.

 

[MonoBiblical]

No, this is incorrect. The Greek genders do not have these properties.

I know differently. Parts of speech in Greek are given words like λογος for words, ρημα for verbs, ονομα for nouns. And these words of speech have very abstract meanings.

 

[RedFan]

But all human names are definite without it, same with Hebrew including the word Adam.

Of course a proper name can only be definite. Not following you here.

 

[RedFan]

Likewise, 'logos' gender is masculine, a 'he' although it's still an IT in reality. And before the 1600s in scripture of John 1, the 'It' for logos was never personified as an 'he.' It was left as an 'it',

Interesting question. The Latin Vulgate has John 1:3 as "omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est." The words ipsum and ipso, respectively in the accusative and ablative, are the same for both masculine and neuter genders in Latin, so either "him" or "it" is a proper translation. (Some day I'll have to ask Jerome which he intended!)

 

[KUWN]

I know differently. Parts of speech in Greek are given words like λογος for words, ρημα for verbs, ονομα for nouns. And these words of speech have very abstract meanings.

I don't want to be obnoxious, but i can assure you that your understanding of Greek is incorrect. Can you cite one Greek authority that holds this view?

In Greek, the "-ma" ending, for example, on a noun typically indicates an action, state, or result derived from a verb, essentially creating a noun that signifies the "act of doing something"

 

[A Freeman]

Excerpt below from:

https://gibraltar-messenger.net/jahtruth/in-the-beginning-was-the-word/

What follows is a critical, spiritually-minded review of what John 1:1-2 actually says, free of the traditions and doctrines of men that have attempted to veil its true and very simple meaning for the past 2000 years.

The word “word” means exactly what it says; the word is a means of communication. And, unsurprisingly, the Word of God proceeds from God.

John 1:1-2 KJV
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

BEFORE the Beginning​

Before the beginning of time, before there was language – both of which God created – God exists. Please note well the correct use of the word “exists”, which is a present-tense verb because God has no beginning, nor any end.

Psalm 90:2 BEFORE the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou [art] God.

God is the self-existing ONE (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 6:4; Zech. 14:9; Mark 12:29), NOT a “trinity”. One actually means one; it does NOT mean 3=1 or 1=3 or anything other than one. There is only ONE Almighty God, Who is The Most High (Psalm 57:2; Luke 1:32-35; Sura 2:255), i.e. greater than ALL (John 10:29).

Before God created anyone or anything, God exists. Before time began there would have been no need for the Word (communication) in any form, as there was no one else with which to communicate.

In the Beginning​

John 1:1-2 KJV
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

The first creation of God was His Firstborn/Eldest Son Michael (Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14), known here on Earth by His TITLE: Christ.

Colossians 1:12-15
1:12 GIVING THANKS UNTO THE FATHER, Which hath made us meet to be sharers of the inheritance of the holy people in Light:
1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into The Kingdom of His dear Son:
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
1:15 Who is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God, the FIRSTBORN of every CREATURE*:

*Note Well:

IMAGE = LIKENESS. The Hebrew name “Micha-El” literally means “Who is LIKE God?”. Like Michael, we (the spiritual-Beings/Souls) were made in God’s IMAGE/LIKENESS, but we certainly are NOT God the Father, and neither is anyone else, including Christ (Matt. 23:9; Sura 33:40).

INVISIBLE = NOT VISIBLE. No one has ever seen God (John 1:18; John 5:37), but thousands upon thousands saw Jesus, the human son of the virgin Mary, into/inside whom Prince Michael/Christ was incarnated.

FIRSTBORN = THE FIRST CREATED/THE FIRST TO BE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE.

CREATURE = SOME LIVING THING THAT WAS CREATED.

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the community of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness (Rev. 1:5), THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD;

The moment that God created Michael (Christ), God became known as Father (Matt. 6:9), and Michael became His Son (yes, a true Father-Son relationship – 1 John 2:22). And it was in that moment when both time and language began.

After God created Michael, God showed Michael everything, creating everyone and everything else by and for Michael (Col. 1:16).

Hebrews 1:1-4
1:1 God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets,
1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [His] Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds;
1:3 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 on the right hand of His Majesty on high;
1:4 Being MADE so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

 

[KUWN]

God is the self-existing ONE (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 6:4; Zech. 14:9; Mark 12:29), NOT a “trinity”. One actually means one; it does NOT mean 3=1 or 1=3 or anything other than one.

Go to Duet 6.4 where the Hebrew mantra is Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. The word 'one' is the same word used of Adam and Eve becoming one. The word "one" does not mean in every use numerically one, since Adam and Eve were TWO, but Moses says God is one, not numerically, but as to their essence. In the New Testament, Jesus says he is one with God. The word one is neuter, and means God is one thing. The church is one as the Godhead is one.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Of course a proper name can only be definite. Not following you here.

Adam for humankind is indefinite with the article.

No, this is incorrect. The Greek genders do not have these properties.

Yes, they do with the exception of -ιος- and -τος nouns etc.

I don't want to be obnoxious, but i can assure you that your understanding of Greek is incorrect. Can you cite one Greek authority that holds this view?

I see that with ἔργα and νεκρά which are feminine forms. ἔργα is a deed done to something same with νεκρά. Masculine and feminine are the difference between actor and actee.

For example Matthew 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ. Peter is the stone or rock maker who made the Messiah a more solid other πέτρα.

I do not use Aristotle's definition of masculine and feminine, because it is undecipherable to me.

 

[A Freeman]

Go to Duet 6.4 where the Hebrew mantra is Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. The word 'one' is the same word used of Adam and Eve becoming one. The word "one" does not mean in every use numerically one, since Adam and Eve were TWO, but Moses says God is one, not numerically, but as to their essence. In the New Testament, Jesus says he is one with God. The word one is neuter, and means God is one thing. The church is one as the Godhead is one.

You're still attempting to argue in vain that one allegedly isn't one, aren't you?

Deuteronomy 6:4 tells us God is ONE, just as Zechariah 14:9 and Mark 12:29 do.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5
6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD ("I AM") our God [is] ONE LORD ("I AM"):
6:5 And thou shalt love the "I AM" thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Zechariah 14:9 And the "I AM" shall be King over all the earth: in that Day shall there be one "I AM", and His name ONE [not a trinity].

Mark 12:29-31
12:29 And Jesus answered him, The First of all the Commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is ONE Lord:
12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength and serve Him ONLY: this [is] the first COMMANDment.
12:31 And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other COMMANDment greater than these.

It should be self-evident that becoming AT ONE with another doesn't mean you cease to be two different individuals; it only means that two (or more) individuals are of ONE MIND. And that's exactly what Scripture tells us it means.

Genesis 2:21-25
2:21 And the "I AM" God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the "I AM" God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken OUT OF Man (wo means take out).
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
2:25 And they were BOTH naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Adam and Eve were clearly two individuals: man and his wife (Gen. 1:27). But they were considered one flesh (a human family), because the woman was supposed to be subject to the man, rather than fight him for the steering wheel of the family's ship.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE.

The same holds true for God and ALL of His Children, i.e. His SPIRITUAL family. And that includes God's firstborn/first-created Son.

John 17:18-25
17:18 As Thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the Truth.
17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe me through their word;
17:21 That they ALL may be ONE; as Thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be ONE in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me.
17:22 And the glory which Thou GAVEST me I have given them; that they may be ONE, even as We are ONE:
17:23 I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in ONE (Matt. 5:48); and that the world may know that Thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as Thou hast loved me.
17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my Glory, which Thou hast GIVEN me: for Thou lovedst me BEFORE the foundation of the world.
17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee: but I know Thee, and these have known that Thou hast sent me.

We are to learn to be ONE with Father (God, the "I AM"), and with Christ (God's First-created Son) and with one another, determined to do God's Will.

That doesn't make us a trinity, or a quaternity, or a million-in-one or anything other than a group of LIKE-MINDED individuals, who are UNITED in seeking to treat one another with love and respect for ourselves and for the rest of God's Creation. And we have Christ's Example of self-sacrifice to understand what love and respect means (John 13:34), along with Father's Law, to help us along on The Way (John 14:6).

 

[KUWN]

It should be self-evident that becoming AT ONE with another doesn't mean you cease to be two different individuals; it only means that two (or more) individuals are of ONE MIND. And that's exactly what Scripture tells us it means.

I agree. ONE MIND, not ONE BEING. ONE IN ESSENCE.

 

[KUWN]

Adam for humankind is indefinite with the article.

Yes, they do with the exception of -ιος- and -τος nouns etc.

I see that with ἔργα and νεκρά which are feminine forms. ἔργα is a deed done to something same with νεκρά. Masculine and feminine are the difference between actor and actee.

For example Matthew 16:18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ. Peter is the stone or rock maker who made the Messiah a more solid other πέτρα.

I do not use Aristotle's definition of masculine and feminine, because it is undecipherable to me.

I was hoping you could substantiate your claims, but to simply say I am wrong, is not scholarship at all.