Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I have something for you to ponder until I can get at my Greek
    dictionaries at home.
    
    There are 2 Greek words for God's Word - Logos and Rhema.  Rhema is the
    spoken word of God.  Logos is what is used in John 1.
    
    Mike

    Yes,
    
    Logos is tough.
    
    There is the Stoic use of "logos", Philo's use of "logos" John's use of
    "logos".    There is the Gnostic use of Logos.
    
    Then there is the Wisdom Tradition.  It is all muddling around in my head.
    Any help would be appreciated.
    
                                 Patricia

    Also see Topic 168 "Logos: The Word"
               and 900 "Philo Judaeus and Logos Theology"
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard
    
    Thanks for the pointer to 168.
    
    
    And I even had the last  "Word"   in that discussion.
    
                                    Patricia

    <-- .4
    
    Ouch!  At least I'm not the only one enslaved to the mighty pun!
    
    ;-)

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    Another interesting verse to consider in the same chapter.  It's funny
    how people often accuse John of not having a nativity passage, but
    those who support a fall birth of Christ do so because of this verse. 
    In Greek, the word for "dwelt" is actually the word used for 
    "tabernacled."  It is believed that this is a dual reference to Christ
    incarnate, but also to His birth near the Feast of Tabernacles
    (September).
    
    Mike

Note 1014.0

>    Can any of you Greek Scholars help me with the prologue to John?

I'm not a Greek scholar.  I've got some Scottish blood in me though. ;-)
    
>    Also any help in various interpretations of 
    
>    The Word was with God and the Word was God!
    
This can be and has been translated in more than one way.

>    Is this fool proof evidence that Jesus and God are the same?
    
Any input from our JW friends on this?

Shalom,
Richard

    >Any input from our JW friends on this?
    
    I'm obviously not a JW, but their NWT interprets John 1:1 as:
    
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
     was a god."
    
         ^^^^^  amazing what an article and lowercase can do to change a
    meaning.
    
    Mike

    I am armed with the appropriate pages of commentaries on John from
    Barrett, Bultman, Ray Brown, and another commentary that I photocopied,
    read extensively and did not put a reference on.  A Journal Article
    from the Journal for New Testament Studies, a Book on Sophia in the
    Johanine Tradition, and a book half in Greek and half in English based
    on someone's whole theory of Salvation History based on the proper
    interpretation of:
    
    Some of this stuff is even mostly in English.  I wonder if my version
    of Ami Pro will produce greek letters.
    
    a.  What came into being in him is life.
    
    or
    
    In his is life.
    
    
    
    I think I am armed with what I need to write my paper.  I do like
    controversy and these five lines do render many different
    interpretations.

    Never heard of those commentators.  Patricia, have you ever thought of
    trying to analyze the text yourself without the help of commentators to
    sway your thinking?  I think you learn much more that way.  I'm at a
    point where I only use commentaries as a gauge to see if we arrive at 
    the same conclusions.
    
    Mike

    From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
    
    Logos - from the root Lego which is a verb to name or put forth.  Logos
    is something said (including the thought); by implication a topic
    (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive;
    by extension a computation; specifically the Divine Expression for
    Christ.  
    
    From The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge for John 1:1:
    
    the Word - this is a figure of speech known as a Hyperbaton or
    Transposition and is also found in Deuteronomy 32:42 and the rest of
    John 1.  By Hyperbaton, the subject, "The Word," being defined by the
    article which is prefixed to it, can be placed at the end of two of the
    clauses, and in each case we are to put the stress on "the Word."  
    
    and the Word - When the predicate precedes the subject there is another
    figure of speech known as the Epitasis (an emphatic enlargement of the
    subject).  Another example of an Epitasis can be found in Exodus 3:19
    and John 4:24.
    
    was God - Not "a god," for the lack of the Greek article here does not
    make "God" indefinite but determines which term ("Word" or "God") is to
    be the subject of the linking verb "was."  Greek word order is somewhat
    more flexible than English, for in English statement sentences the
    predicate nominative always follows the linking verb.  But the literal
    order of the Greek words here is "and God was the Word" (kai theos een
    o logos), the subject "Word" follows the verb and the predicate
    nominative "God" precedes the verb, the reverse of English word order. 
    Since this clause uses a linking verb, both the subject and the
    predicate nominative are in the nominative case, so case endings do not
    serve to identify the subject in this construction; rather, the article
    "the" points out the subject of the clause.  Greek uses the article
    "the" to accomplish what English does by word order.  Thus, if John had
    placed the article "the" before "God," the meaning would be "God was the
    Word;" if he had placed the article "the" before both "Word" and "God,"
    the meaning would be convertible or reversible: it would mean equally
    "God was the Word," and "The Word was God," but this John did not do. 
    By placing the article "the" before "Word," "Word" must be the subject
    of the linking verb "was," and the statement can only be rendered "the
    Word was God."  Just as mistaken is the rendering "the Word was
    divine," for "God," lacking the article is not thereby an adjective, or
    rendered qualitative when it precedes a linking verb followed by a noun
    which does have the article.  
    
    Translators and translations which choose to render this phrase "a god"
    or "divine" are motivated by theological, not grammatical,
    considerations.  The phrase "a god" is particularly objectionable,
    because it makes Christ a lesser god, which is polytheism, and contrary
    to the express declaration of Scripture elsewhere (Deuteronomy 32:39). 
    For clearly if Christ is "a god," then he must be either a "true god"
    or a "false god."  If "true," we assert polytheism; if "false," he is
    unworthy of our credence.  John's high view of Christ expressed
    throughout his gospel, climaxing in the testimony of Thomas, who
    addressed Christ as "my Lord and my God," is asserted from this opening
    statement, "the Word was God."  There is no legitimate basis for
    understanding his declaration in any lesser sense than affirming the
    full deity of our Savior.
    
    Other cross references listed are Hebrews 4:12, 1 John 1:1-2, 5:7, and a 
    key ones in John 5:18, 8:35,58-59, 10:30,33-34, 20:28, Isaiah 43:10,
    44:6, Jeremiah 23:5, Acts 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1,
    and Revelation 19:13.  
    
    Mike

    You underestimate yourself, Patricia.  If you must use commentaries, at
    least try some that don't bias your faith as well so that you can gain
    some objectivity.
    
    Mike

Patricia,  let me again recommend that you purchase the commentary on
John published by the Faculty of Theology at the University of Navarre.

You can obtain it at Sheehan's in town, or at the Daughters of St. Paul
in Dedham (on Rt 1, about 1/2 mile inside Rt 128 at exit 15).

It costs $12.95, and there's no tax on it because it also contains the
text, making it a bible and not taxed in Massachusetts.  (Standalone
commentaries are taxed.)

/john

      Significant (to me) that John says, "In the beginning was
      the logos."
    
      The more I look, the more I see the efficacy of all that
      Christ did being revelatory, i.e. what that revelation produced
      in the hearer.
    
                                               Tony

Re:  .7  Richard
    
>Any input from our JW friends on this?

There's plenty of input from Jehovah's Witnesses in topic 907, which is why
you probably won't see any in this string.  It doesn't need to be posted all
over again.


Steve

    This was the best commentary on the exegisis of "And the Word was God"
    that I found in my research.   Doing an exegisis is quite an education!
    
    
"The NT does not predicate "God" of Jesus with any frequency.  V. Taylor has 
asked whether it ever calls Jesus God, since almost every text proposed has 
its difficulties. ... Most of the passages suggested(Jni 1, 18, xx 28, 
Rom ix 5, Heb i 8, II Pet i 1) are in hymns or doxologies-an indication that 
the title "God" was applied to Jesus more quickly in liturgical formulae than
in narrative or epistoloary literature. ...

The way that the NT approached the question of the divinity of Jesus was not
through the title "God" for the Son, but by describing his activities in the 
same way as it described the father's activities.  In i 1c the Johannine
hymn is bordering on the usage of "God" for the Son, but by omitting the 
article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with 
the Father.  And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the "Word" was a second God
the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense."

Ray Brown, The Gospel According to John. Vol 1 (Garden City: Doubleay Company,,
1966) p24-25.

    Ray Brown's commentary is part of the Anchor Bible Series and was by
    far the best commentary I found both in terms of readability for
    someone who does not know Greek and comprehensibility in identifying
    the issues.
    
    Patricia

    re .16
    
    Thanks for the pointer.  There is lots of good information posted
    there.
    
    Patricia

 How does Mr. Brown explain John 20:28, where Thomas clearly identifies 
 Jesus as God?  How does Mr. Brown explain John 8:58 (and the Jews reaction
 to what He said)?  How does Mr. Brown deal with Colossians 1 which says the
 world was created by Him and by Him?


Jim

    It sounds like Mr. Brown doesn't know Greek either.  Greek is a very
    strict, specific, and legal language.  Brown's incorrect analysis
    doesn't bear that out, and neither does the NWT.  His doctrinal stance
    is coloring the language instead of being objective.
    
    Mike

.21

>   His doctrinal stance
>   is coloring the language instead of being objective.

Of course, nobody else we know could ever be accused of this. ;-)

Richard

    Not in this case, Richard.  You can't play word games in Greek like you
    can in English.  Either you know the language or you don't.  Mr. Brown
    doesn't.

    Actually there is a great word game in the passage.
    
    i: 4  What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light
    of all people.
    
    i: 5  THe light shines in the darkness and the darness did not
    Understand it.
    
    Most authorities translate verse 5 as the darkness did not overcome
    it.
    
    If eternal life from Jesus is the light of all people and the darkness
    does not overcome it, then all people are destined for eternal life.
    
    
    *****************
    Hidden, perhaps even from the human author is a message of universal 
    salvation.
    
    The light is the light of all people and darkness cannot overcome it!
    
    
    Patricia
    Amen!

RE:        <<< Note 1014.24 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

       
   > Most authorities translate verse 5 as the darkness did not overcome
   > it.
    

   "most"?


   > If eternal life from Jesus is the light of all people and the darkness
   > does not overcome it, then all people are destined for eternal life.
    
    
>    Hidden, perhaps even from the human author is a message of universal 
>    salvation.
    
 
    Have you reached John 3:16 yet? "...that whosoever believeth on Him
    should not perish, but have everlasting life" according to this
    verse, some will indeed perish (those who choose not to believe [or
    accept]) Christ.



    If there is universal salvation, why did Jesus have to suffer and die?


  
 Jim

  

    Mike,
    
    What you posted in .11 clearly shows that there is room to debate the
    translation.  Every commentator on the passages including the one you
    posted, indicates the difficulty with the translation.
    
    There are no value neutral translations.  Ray Brown does not even say
    that the translation the Word was God is incorrect.  He indicates that
    some commentators have made that statement.  His audience is mainly
    learned Trinitarian Christian Theologians.  There are many more
    reference in the Bible to Jesus being separate from God than to Jesus
    being God.  In John, Jesus is completely obedient to God and only does
    the Father's will.  We meet the father through Jesus.  That is his
    significance.  Evin if  you do  interpret the Word was God as meaning full
    personal identification, you still need to deal with the Paradox
    of Jesus being less than God and God at the same time.
    
                                           Patricia                                     
    

    Jim,
    
    How does the NIV and the KJV translate the verb in verse 5.
    
    Maybe I was not clear in stating that I translate the verb understand
    to be consistent with the narrative of John.
    
    The theory of predestination is fully supported in John in my opinion.
    
    However, hidden  beneath John's theology is in fact a glimmer of
    universalism that it very obvious in verses 4-5.
    
                                          Patricia

RE:        <<< Note 1014.27 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

   


>       How does the NIV and the KJV translate the verb in verse 5.
 

   KJV "comprehendeth"

   
>    However, hidden  beneath John's theology is in fact a glimmer of
>    universalism that it very obvious in verses 4-5.
 

 quickly dashed by verse 12 "but as many as received him, to them gave
 he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believeth on His
 name"

 3:3 "...verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see
 the Kingdom of God."

 3:5 "..verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the
 spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"

 John 13:45-48 also seems to reject universal salvation.





Jim

    Jim,
    
    I AGREE WITH YOU.  "John intented the idea Comprehend, understand.
    
    
    The miraculous is that there is a hidden meaning that is even more
    powerful than the smallness of predestination.
    
     I know that there is at least one more place in John that also has
     universalistic overtures.
    
    Why is it so necessary for some to feel good about themselves that they
    have to brand others as children of darkness?
    
    Patricia

RE:        <<< Note 1014.29 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

   

    
>    Why is it so necessary for some to feel good about themselves that they
>    have to brand others as children of darkness?
    
 

  Patricia, you don't really think that "some feel good about themselves
  labeling others children of darkness" do you?  Have you read about Jesus'
  tears over what He did to save their souls?  

  

 Jim

Excuse me, but at the time the KJV was written, the English word "comprehend"
meant "encompass" or to "take in" or to "embrace".  Not "understand".

This is why modern translations use such words as "overcome".

/john

 Thanks, John...didn't have a chance to run home and check my Vining's
 Dictionary of the Bible ;-)




 Jim

    Patricia,
    
>    What you posted in .11 clearly shows that there is room to debate the
>    translation.  Every commentator on the passages including the one you
>    posted, indicates the difficulty with the translation.
    
    It didn't strike me that way.
    
>    significance.  Evin if  you do  interpret the Word was God as meaning full
>    personal identification, you still need to deal with the Paradox
>    of Jesus being less than God and God at the same time.
    
    That's why in taking the entire Bible in context, it is obvious that
    there is a triune relationship there.  There is no other explanation,
    without supporting polytheism, that defines how Christ can be separate 
    yet one.
    
    Mike

    1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
       Word was God.
    2. He was in the beginning with God.
    3. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came
       into being that has come into being.
    4. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
    5. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not
       (1)comprehend it.
    
    (1) or, overpower
    
    Jesus is the Light and the Life.  We have no light or life without Him.
    This is what John is saying.
    
    Mike

Patricia, I'm not sure if you answered this question posed in .25


>    If there is universal salvation, why did Jesus have to suffer and die?


  
 Jim

  

re Note 1014.35 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

> Patricia, I'm not sure if you answered this question posed in .25
> 
> 
> >    If there is universal salvation, why did Jesus have to suffer and die?
  
        Jim,

        I can in no way answer for Patricia.

        And I'm unsure about universal salvation.

        However, if there is universal salvation, it is only
        *because* Jesus paid a price sufficient to cover *all*.

        (And "universal salvation" would eliminate that last bit of
        "you have to do something on your own part to be saved" that
        even "salvation by faith" really implies.)

        Bob

      Oh Patricia...
    
      I have heard a person saying that God is a master of the 'third
      option.'  Can you perhaps draw another conclusion?  Perhaps you
      are not perfect in discernment and seemingly 'depressing' conclusions
      may really be merely symptomatic that you don't have a full handle
      of the truth - just as I don't!!   ;-)
    
      Like when John talks of children of the devil, I mean its all
      spiritual.  To be a child of the devil is to be a child of the
      principle of sin, to be unregenerate.  To have the principle of 
      self exaltation reign supreme in the heart while the principle of
      self crucifixion (sacrifice) and just being a poured out offering
      for the Lord is vacant.
    
      Please consider the possibility that maybe its just that you (like
      the rest of us) are not yet perfect in the truth.   And thus we
      haven't a full handle of things.
    
                                                      Tony