John 1:1 and Jesus’ Sonship in Adoptionist thought

[Hiddenthings]

Happy for you @dak to post your insights and belief here.
Thanks
HT

 

[dak]

Thanks for asking, and for the invite, HT.

First there are some important and necessary preliminary thoughts to begin with. As for Arius, the so-called early fourth century heretic, one cannot truly know for sure what all he actually believed, for he was apparently poisoned, and then most all of his works soon disappeared: then, according to the same old M.O., the Roman early church used the occasion to gloat by making the claim that Jesus killed him, ("punished him", The Gruesome Death of Arius, AD 336), for preaching something that they themselves had decided was heresy. Does that actually sound like the Jesus of the Gospel accounts? (see John 12:47-50, which we have been over elsewhere). Moreover the Father is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish: neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Meshiah go around physically, bodily killing those who teach incorrect doctrines. Howbeit Arius was indeed an Adoptionist, though one cannot tell what type, for his writings are gone and all we have are smears from those who silenced his voice to control a narrative.

However we have also today in modern times a sect of Adoptionists, many of whom which claim for themselves the label Arian, who do not believe in or recognize the Eternal Son (doctrine), and rather only recognize a natural born man as the Meshiah, (whom they also typically call either Jesus or Yeshua). This also is not my understanding of the scripture teaching on Adoptionism. In my view N/T scripture clearly teaches that the Son is eternal just as the Father and was not created, but rather always has been, and is ever-always in the bosom of the Father: for the Son is the Logos of the Father, His Word, even the Wisdom, logic, reason and reasoning, (understanding), of the Rhema-Word of the Father. The Father has never been without His own Word.

The above leads into another critical point: the compound word monogenes, (G3439 μονογενης), in John 1:18 is not monos+gennetos, ("only born", or "only begotten", as was assumed for far too long), but is rather monos+genos, ("only kind", or "one-of-a-kind"). Modern scholarship is more and more coming to this conclusion: even some Trinitarians understand the contradiction and the problems it creates with their own doctrine.

This final point above is critical to the argument because the typical Trinitarian renderings of John 1:1 violate this principle from John 1:18, which is even part of their own doctrine. This relates directly back to the usage of the Greek preposition pros found in John 1:1. You can now find pretty much everything I am about to say concerning this online for free, but I will continue in the next post with it anyway: it has everything to do with the different conceptions of the Almighty Creator and Father in the Hebrew mindset, (YHWH), and the third/fourth century Greco-Roman mindset concerning God, a god, and the gods. Pagan Greeks and Romans did not have a singular Almighty God that was Spirit, all-powerful, and omnipresent: the chief god of the Greeks was Zeus, and the equivalent chief god of the Romans was Jupiter, anthropomorphic mythological entities constrained by anthropomorphic bodies, (even zoomorphic in lesser gods), and this Greco-Roman thinking can be seen in certain scripture interpretations of the Greco-Roman early church.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Thanks for asking, and for the invite, HT.

First there are some important and necessary preliminary thoughts to begin with. As for Arius, the so-called early fourth century heretic, one cannot truly know for sure what all he actually believed, for he was apparently poisoned, and then most all of his works soon disappeared: then, according to the same old M.O., the Roman early church used the occasion to gloat by making the claim that Jesus killed him, ("punished him", The Gruesome Death of Arius, AD 336), for preaching something that they themselves had decided was heresy. Does that actually sound like the Jesus of the Gospel accounts? (see John 12:47-50, which we have been over elsewhere). Moreover the Father is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish: neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Meshiah go around physically, bodily killing those who teach incorrect doctrines. Howbeit Arius was indeed an Adoptionist, though one cannot tell what type, for his writings are gone and all we have are smears from those who silenced his voice to control a narrative.

Know the history well dak and agree with all your points.

However we have also today in modern times a sect of Adoptionists, many of whom which claim for themselves the label Arian, who do not believe in or recognize the Eternal Son (doctrine), and rather only recognize a natural born man as the Meshiah, (whom they also typically call either Jesus or Yeshua).
This also is not my understanding of the scripture teaching on Adoptionism. In my view N/T scripture clearly teaches that the Son is eternal just as the Father and was not created, but rather always has been, and is ever-always in the bosom of the Father: for the Son is the Logos of the Father, His Word, even the Wisdom, logic, reason and reasoning, (understanding), of the Rhema-Word of the Father. The Father has never been without His own Word.

We part ways here dak...but happy for you to continue.

The Apostles all understood Jesus to be the essence of a New Creation in which God conveyed Life upon His Son. If Jesus pre-existed, Life could not be granted i.e. it would already be in his possession.

The above leads into another critical point: the compound word monogenes, (G3439 μονογενης), in John 1:18 is not monos+gennetos, ("only born", or "only begotten", as was assumed for far too long), but is rather monos+genos, ("only kind", or "one-of-a-kind"). Modern scholarship is more and more coming to this conclusion: even some Trinitarians understand the contradiction and the problems it creates with their own doctrine.

It's remarkable how scholars and lay followers alike attempt to turn Christ into something he never claimed to be. Ultimately, their entire belief hinges on a contested reading of just one word. To put this in perspective, the same can be said of the so-called scholars at the Council of Nicaea, who in their earthly wisdom devised (formulated) the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe the whole record needs to be considered. For example, compare Psalm 21 with John 5:26—no one in this forum can reconcile the words of David, Jesus, and Paul, who all affirm that God granted Christ immortality after his mortal death. If you believed Jesus to have pre-existed, then you must also believe that his death was not the cessation of life but a facade so to speak. This is a major problem with the Atonement principles.

This final point above is critical to the argument because the typical Trinitarian renderings of John 1:1 violate this principle from John 1:18, which is even part of their own doctrine. This relates directly back to the usage of the Greek preposition pros found in John 1:1. You can now find pretty much everything I am about to say concerning this online for free, but I will continue in the next post with it anyway: it has everything to do with the different conceptions of the Almighty Creator and Father in the Hebrew mindset, (YHWH), and the third/forth century Greco-Roman mindset concerning God, a god, and the gods. Pagan Greeks and Romans did not have a singular Almighty God that was Spirit, all-powerful, and omnipresent: the chief god of the Greeks was Zeus, and the equivalent chief god of the Romans was Jupiter, anthropomorphic mythological entities constrained by anthropomorphic bodies, (even zoomorphic in lesser gods), and this Greco-Roman thinking can be seen in the interpretations of the Greco-Roman early church.

Agree.

 

[Hiddenthings]

@dak don't feel the need to respond to my comments for now - happy for you to proceed.

 

[dak]

Shield of the Trinity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note: The Son is not in the bosom of the Father in the image file. This is a tripartite, (three part), God: for one without the other two is not fully God, for the fourth God in the center is the only full God. The Son is not the Father, nor is he in the Father, and it is the same for all three lesser Gods to the fourth God in the center. Moreover the Father is reduced to equality with the Son by the image conception itself, and likewise all three outer perimeter Gods are equal with each other, and only when they are together as the fourth God in the center are they fully God. It's essentially God cut into three slices, tripartite.

Moreover, according to the Hebrew conception of the Father, the only way that one might come close in trying to explain the Father in picto-graphic form, (which is forbidden anyway), would be to imagine the white or clear background as extending in all directions from the point of the viewer forever, not just according to the square plane of the drawing, but in all directions, forever. The Scutum Fidei, (Trinity Shield), is the earliest known depiction attempt at describing the Trinity, and as we all know, it continues to be used to this day: but it came from the mindset the early Greco-Roman church.

The Hebrew conception of the Almighty Father:

Deuteronomy 10:14 KJV
14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

1 Kings 8:27 KJV (2 Chr 6:18)
27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Psalm 139:5-8 KJV
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, [Sheol] behold, thou art there.

The heavens and heaven of heavens cannot contain the Father, (Deut 10:14, 1Kngs 8:27).
There is nowhere a man can go where the Father is not there, (Psa 139:7-8).

John 1:1 (T/R, N/A, W/H, BYZ all agree)
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον Θ̅Ν και Θ̅C ην ο λογος

Here we have the preposition pros in an accusative case context, (ton Theon), and it changes slightly in meaning with a change in case.

1. forward to, i.e. toward
2. (genitive case) the side of, i.e. pertaining to
3. (dative case) by the side of, i.e. near to
4. (accusative case, usually) the place, time, occasion, or respect (which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated)
Greek/4314

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4314: πρός
πρός, a preposition, equivalent to the epic προτί, from πρό and the adverbial suffix τί (cf. the German vor ... bin (Curtius, § 381)); it is joined
I. with the accusative, to, toward, Latinad, denoting direction toward a thing, or position and state looking toward a thing (Winer's Grammar, § 49 h., p. 404 (378)); it is used

Strong's Greek: 4314. πρός (pros) -- to, towards, with, for

Then Thayer gives a large list of ways and contexts in which pros is used, and the first is under the title of the number 1, (a numerical-alphabetical list), and we skip then over all of section 1, and come to section 2a, where our usage in both John 1:1 and 1John 1:2 are found, (same accusative context in both passages).

2. it is used of close proximity — the idea of direction, though not entirely lost, being more or less weakened;
a. answering to our at or by (German an); after verbs of fastening, adhering, moving (to): δεδέσθαι πρός τήν θύραν, Mark 11:4; προσκολλᾶσθαι, Mark 10:7 R G Tr (in marginal reading brackets); Ephesians 5:31 R G WH text; προσκόπτειν, Matthew 4:6; Luke 4:11; κεῖσθαι, equivalent to to be brought near to, Matthew 3:10; Luke 3:9 ((cf. 2 Macc. 4:33)); τιθέναι, Acts 3:2; (Acts 4:37 Tdf. (others παρά)); add, βεβλησθαι, Luke 16:20; τά πρός τήν θύραν, the forecourt (see θύρα, a.), Mark 2:2; εἶναι πρός τήν θάλασσαν (properly, toward the sea (A. V. by the sea)), Mark 4:1; θερμαίνεσθαι πρός τό φῶς, turned to the light (R. V. in the light), Mark 14:54; καθῆσθαι πρός τό φῶς, Luke 22:56; πρός τό μνημεῖον, John 20:11 Rec.; cf. Fritzsche on Mark, p. 201f
b. equivalent to (Latinapud) with, with the accusative of a person, after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying, etc. (which require one to be conceived of as always turned toward one), cf. Fritzsche as above: after εἶναι, Matthew 13:56; Mark 6:3; Mark 9:19; Mark 14:49; Luke 9:41; John 1:1; 1 John 1:2;

Strong's Greek: 4314. πρός (pros) -- to, towards, with, for

Understand both the meaning and the implications, and ask yourself why Thayer would say, "which require one to be conceived of as always turned toward one". Why on earth would he say one always turned toward one??? The reality should be a shock, yet most seem to have no qualms about it or try to explain it away when it is brought up, but this is subterfuge. Thayer is avoiding saying one toward another because there is no another in Trinity jargon, for 1+1+1=1, and if he said one turned toward another or one turned toward the other then the issue has more chance of becoming inflammatory in the Trinitarian mindset because it is so blatantly obvious what this means: two Gods, side by side, or next to each other, and even more specifically according to their own grammar rules, facing each other and outside of each other, and that's exactly what we see in the Trinity Shield image file herein above.

 

[PS95]

This thread is funny. It's clear that neither of you understand the trinity teaching or you would not say these silly things. If I was opposed to Algebra or Koine Greek- in order to be taken seriously and be a responsible person, I would first fully learn what algebra teaches and why before I attempted to attack it. It's clear that was not done and therefore you post things such as this.

I am not about to give you an education on the trinity because the poster of this OP is not a Christian but a deceiver, who posts irresponsibly all of the time- an arrogant, unteachable know-it- all with a superior gnosis delusion who must twist the scriptures into stale pretzels in order to make an attempt at making a point.
Assigning yourself with the "Christian" tag on this forum knowing the SOF is just the beginning of your deceit.

 

[Hiddenthings]

This thread is funny. It's clear that neither of you understand the trinity teaching or you would not say these silly things. If I was opposed to Algebra or Koine Greek- in order to be taken seriously and be a responsible person, I would first fully learn what algebra teaches and why before I attempted to attack it. It's clear that was not done and therefore you post things such as this.

I am not about to give you an education on the trinity because the poster of this OP is not a Christian but a deceiver, who posts irresponsibly all of the time- an arrogant, unteachable know-it- all with a superior gnosis delusion who must twist the scriptures into stale pretzels in order to make an attempt at making a point.
Assigning yourself with the "Christian" tag on this forum knowing the SOF is just the beginning of your deceit.

Your belief in hypostasis leads to this kind of failure. How can you reconcile the apostles’ teaching on Christ’s nature while insisting on duality? What’s striking is that you haven’t even attempted to do so, such a belief is futile and impossible to prove from Scripture.

Given this reality, you have two choices: acknowledge it, as many Trinitarian theologians already have, or become a false accuser.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Understand both the meaning and the implications, and ask yourself why Thayer would say, "which require one to be conceived of as always turned toward one". Why on earth would he say one always turned toward one??? The reality should be a shock, yet most seem to have no qualms about it or try to explain it away when it is brought up, but this is subterfuge. Thayer is avoiding saying one toward another because there is no another in Trinity jargon, for 1+1+1=1, and if he said one turned toward another or one turned toward the other then the issue has more chance of becoming inflammatory in the Trinitarian mindset because it is so blatantly obvious what this means: two Gods, side by side, or next to each other, and even more specifically according to their own grammar rules, facing each other and outside of each other, and that's exactly what we see in the Trinity Shield image file herein above.

The tension between Greek grammar and Trinitarian doctrine is immediately apparent. The language, particularly the use of πρός (“toward”), naturally implies relational distinction, one entity oriented toward another whereas Trinitarian dogma suppresses such differentiation, insisting on absolute unity.

This distinction is evident in passages like 2 Corinthians 5:19, which states that “God was in Christ reconciling the world.” Grammatically and contextually, this allows for directionality and agency, but it does not imply that God the Father literally became Christ.

Similarly, John 1:14, which states that the Word became flesh, and 1 Timothy 3:16, which says that God was manifest in the flesh, primarily indicate God’s manifestation (Mind, Will & Purpose) through the human flesh of Christ rather than ontological identity. From this perspective, the claim that the Logos ceased to be the Logos when becoming flesh is highly problematic. If the Logos is a person and is himself God (John 1:1), then the divine nature cannot cease. To assert otherwise would reduce the Logos to an impersonal attribute rather than a personal agent of God’s will. God’s manifestation through Christ demonstrates God working through a human agent without loss of divinity. Relational distinction is evident and linguistically supported, yet the Logos remains fully God (i.e. Reason & Motive), fully himself, even while manifest in the flesh. Consequently, any claim that the Logos ceased to exist or became something other than God in God’s manifestation is inconsistent with Scripture and unnecessary to explain God’s work through Christ.

This upholds the principle of human agency, the method God has used from the beginning to reveal His will and accomplish His purposes. By setting aside the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, we can more clearly understand both what Christ was in his nature and what he became.

Revelation 1:18 states: “I am the Living One; I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”

If Christ were fully God from the start, this statement would carry no meaning. Its significance lies in the fact that Christ was born into human nature (under deaths condemnation), died (total cessation of life), and was then raised to eternal life.

 

[dak]

Hebrew words in the Gospel of John:

1) Kepha, (Greek transliteration: κηφας), from H3710 Keph.

John 1:42 ASV
42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter). [or Stone, or a Stone]

a) It seems strange that the author sees a need to give an interpretation for Kepha: it is as if the author is writing to a Gentile audience, which is doubtful, imo.

2) Hosanna, (Greek transliteration: ωσαννα), Hebrew: hoshiya-na, "save now", Psalm 118:25

John 12:12-13 ASV
12 On the morrow a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13 took the branches of the palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried out, Hosanna: [Psa 118:25] Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, [Psa 118:26] even the King of Israel.

a) This is probably the most difficult Hebrew word, (compound phrase), in this Gospel account for a Gentile believer to understand, and yet, here the author sees no need to interpret the phrase for the reader. Could it be that this is itself a translation of a Hebrew text into Greek? Does the translator even know what Hosanna, (Hoshiya-na), means? Why give translations or explanations for all the other Hebrew words in this Gospel account and not this one, the most difficult to understand? It isn't rendered quite right in the LXX either, and neither do Matthew and Mark explain it or interpret it: perhaps this is actually a translator of an original Hebrew Gospel who wasn't even sure what the phrase actually means?

3) Gabbatha, (Greek transliteration: G1042 γαββαθα), from H1354 gab, the back, as rounded or arched:

H1354 גב gab (gaɓ) n-e.
1. the back (as rounded).
2. (by analogy) the top or rim, a boss, a vault, arch of eye, bulwarks, etc.
[from an unused root meaning to hollow or curve]
KJV: back, body, boss, eminent (higher) place, (eye)brows, nave, ring.

In this context it would pretty obviously be an eminent (higher) place, possibly arched, (the tribunal).
See gabbath, re: גבת עיניו, Lev 14:9, ("the top of his eye", meaning the eyebrow).

John 19:13 ASV
13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called The Pavement, [λιθοστρωτον, re: Esther 1:6] but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.

a) "The Pavement", (λιθοστρωτον, probably taken from Esther 1:6), does not even agree with the interpretation, which has caused much confusion. Is this translator merely an early church scribe?

4) Golgotha, (Greek transliteration: G1115 Γολγοθᾶ), H1538 גלגלת, gulgoleth, a skull or head

John 19:17 ASV
17 They took Jesus therefore: and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called The place of a skull, [G2898 κρανίον, kranion] which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha: [H1538 גלגלת, gulgoleth]

5) Rabboni, Rabbouni, (Greek transliteration: ραββουνι), from H7227 Rab.

John 20:16 ASV
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; [ραββουνι] which is to say, Teacher [διδασκαλε].

a) This word is also found in Mark 10:51 yet the author finds no reason to interpret it for the reader in that Gospel account.
b) The interpretation in John 20:16 is incorrect: a Rabbi is a Teacher, (διδασκαλε), or even a "great teacher", (the literal meaning of the Hebrew word Rab), and may even be understood as "my great Teacher". Moreover a Rabban is greater than a Rabbi and a Rabboni is either greater than a Rabban or a Rabban with the yod/yud suffix, ("my great Rabban"). Moreover this term wasn't likely in use until somewhere in around the beginning of the first century, at the earliest, so it is questionable whether or not this text might have been added at a later date, (see: What does Rabboni really mean?).

6) Thomas the Twin, called the Twin, (Greek transliteration Θωμᾶς, Θωμᾷ), from Hebrew, H8380 תאום (i. e. twin)

H8380 תָּאוֹם ta'owm (taw-ome') n-m.
תָּאֹם ta'om (taw-ome')
(in plural only) a twin.
{literally or figuratively}
[from H8382]

G2381 Θωμᾶς Thomas (thō-mas') n/p.
1. the twin.
2. Thomas, a Christian.

John 11:16 ASV
16 Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

John 20:24 ASV
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

John 21:2 ASV
2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

a) Thomas is mentioned in all four Gospel accounts and yet none of the other authors see a need to repeat or explain the meaning of his name.
b) However, in eight mentions of Thomas in the Gospel of John the translator repeats the interpretation three times: for the Hebrew word used for Thomas already means "a twin", that is, both Thomas and Didymus mean the same exact thing, "a twin", and thus the actual meaning of the statement, "Thomas called Didymus", would be "the Twin called the Twin".
c) This is near the point of ridiculous: what we appear to have here, (by what is now seen spread over just about the entire account), is the hijacking of a Hebrew Gospel account so as to turn it into a polemic against "the Jews" by an apostle who was himself a Yhudi. The interpretations of the above Hebrew words appear to have been inserted into the text so as to make it look as if the account was originally written in Greek to a Gentile audience.

Also see this important thread:

Twelve, Eleven, then Ten? (Apostles)

By the end of this post the thread topic should be evident. The Twelve: Matthew 10:2-4 LSV 2 And of the twelve apostles the names are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the tax...

www.christianityboard.com

Together with other problems in this Gospel account, (some of which may be found in the link above), it surely appears that the Gospel of John we have today is yet another translation of a Hebrew Gospel account into Greek: so where did the translator or translators go wrong in John 1:1? Ah yes, again, their choice of G4314 πρὸς, which instead should have been G3326 μετά, (properly, in the midst of, amid, with, within, denoting association, union, accompaniment), and if they had guessed correctly, (darn the luck), there would not be any problem with the opening statement, John 1:1. But why did they choose incorrectly? Again, the Greco-Roman natural mindset which by nature and culture sees God, or a god, or gods, in extremely limited anthropomorphic imagery which has nothing to do with the Almighty Elohim and Father of the Hebrews.

Yeshayah 52:5-7
5 And now, what have I here, says the Oracle of YHWH, that My people are taken away for naught? Their rulers cause them to be howling, says the Oracle of YHWH, and My Name is blasphemed every day continually because of you.
6 Therefore My people shall know My Name in that day, for I am the One who speaks: [המדבר] Behold, I am present! [Deu 30:14, Rom 10:8]
7 How pleasant upon the mountains are the feet of the one who brings good news, who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims deliverance, who says to Tzion, Your Elohim reigns!

John 1:1 Hebrew
בראשית היה המדבר והמדבר היה את האלהים ואלהים היה המדבר׃
In the beginning was the One Speaking, and the One Speaking was with the Elohim, and Elohim was the One Speaking:

-------------------------------------------​

"Epiphanius goes on to say that he had heard of Hebrew versions of John and Acts kept privately in the treasuries (Geniza?) at Tiberias".......

The Gospel of the Ebionites

The Gospel of the Ebionites on Early Christian Writings: the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, and Church Fathers: information and translations of Gospels, Epistles, and documents of early Christianity.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

John 14:16-18 ASV
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
17 even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you desolate: I come unto you.

 

[Hiddenthings]

The direction --> of God Manifestation is key to unlocking John's lofty thoughts.

"The Word was God"

Just as he used the definite article (ho) to emphasize the meaning of “Logos,” here there is no definite article. That is, “the Word” was not THE God personally, but rather “of God,” “godly,” or a manifestation of God. In verse 14, John writes that “we beheld his glory,” describing one who came from God and was therefore divine in character. This has been translated as “The Word was DIVINE” (Moffatt). John is affirming Christ’s divinity, not his deity. Christ was the Son of God, the “Divine Expression” from heaven dwelling among us, the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being (Hebrews 1:3).

@dak, the key issue is understanding God’s glory in relation to His character, and how Christ perfectly reflected that character. Introducing a separate divine nature (a duality) undermines the coherence of the entire Gospel.

 

[Hiddenthings]

“The Word became flesh” refers primarily to Christ’s nature, not merely his birth (cf. 1 John 4:2). God manifested Himself in human flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), not in stone or lifeless forms (Exodus 34:6). Jesus was of David’s seed (Romans 1:3), subject to the curse (Galatians 3:13), born of a woman under the law (Galatians 4:4), and made “sin” for our sake (2 Corinthians 5:21). He was of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), in the likeness of men and of no reputation (Philippians 2:7), and like his brethren (Hebrews 2:17).

Why was the “Word” made flesh? In Mosaic sacrifices, offerings came from herd or flock (Leviticus 1:2) to show the closeness of the connection between offerer and offering. A sinless human, however, demonstrates an even deeper connection with other men than an animal ever could.

The conception of Jesus in the virgin womb is likened to the original creation in Genesis. It marks the beginning of a new, spiritual “creation.” The Spirit of God hovering over the waters (Genesis 1:2) is echoed in Deuteronomy 32:11, where the imagery resembles a mother bird brooding over her young, protecting and nurturing them. This same creative energy is described in Luke 1:35, where the Holy Spirit “overshadows” Mary, calling to mind the Genesis creation imagery. Just as God brought life from the chaotic waters, the Spirit brings forth new life in the womb of Mary.

This parallel emphasizes both the power and tenderness of God. It portrays a Creator who sustains all things by His omnipotence, acting according to His will, beyond human comprehension or question. At the same time, it portrays a loving Father who pities His children and lavishes mercy upon those who can never repay Him. As Scripture exclaims, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed on us...” (cf. Exodus 40:35, where the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle).

 

[dak]

The direction --> of God Manifestation is key to unlocking John's lofty thoughts.

"The Word was God"

Just as he used the definite article (ho) to emphasize the meaning of “Logos,” here there is no definite article. That is, “the Word” was not THE God personally, but rather “of God,” “godly,” or a manifestation of God. In verse 14, John writes that “we beheld his glory,” describing one who came from God and was therefore divine in character. This has been translated as “The Word was DIVINE” (Moffatt). John is affirming Christ’s divinity, not his deity. Christ was the Son of God, the “Divine Expression” from heaven dwelling among us, the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being (Hebrews 1:3).

@dak, the key issue is understanding God’s glory in relation to His character, and how Christ perfectly reflected that character. Introducing a separate divine nature (a duality) undermines the coherence of the entire Gospel.

This following is a little ahead of where I would like to be at this point but that's okay.

Nomina Sacra Key (for the three case forms of Θεος found herein)
Θ̅Ϲ — Θεος, Θεοτης, (Col 2:9), Θειος, (Acts 17:29), Θειοτης, (Rom 1:20)
Θ̅Ν — Θεον, Θειον, (Exo 31:3, Exo 35:31, Prov 2:17, Acts 17:29)
Θ̅Υ — Θεου, Θειου, (Exo 31:3, Exo 35:31, Prov 2:17, Acts 17:29)

John 1:1-18 W/H (W/Variants)
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον Θ̅Ν και Θ̅Ϲ ην ο λογος
2 ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον Θ̅Ν
3 παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν
4 εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων
5 και το φως εν τη σκοτια φαινει και η σκοτια αυτο ου κατελαβεν
6 εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα Θ̅Υ ονομα αυτω ιωαννης
7 ουτος ηλθεν εις μαρτυριαν ινα μαρτυρηση περι του φωτος ινα παντες πιστευσωσιν δι αυτου
8 ουκ ην εκεινος το φως αλλ ινα μαρτυρηση περι του φωτος
9 ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον
10 εν τω κοσμω ην και ο κοσμος δι αυτου εγενετο και ο κοσμος αυτον ουκ εγνω
11 εις τα ιδια ηλθεν και οι ιδιοι αυτον ου παρελαβον
12 οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα Θ̅Υ γενεσθαι τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα αυτου
13 οι ουκ εξ αιματων ουδε εκ θεληματος σαρκος ουδε εκ θεληματος ανδρος αλλ εκ Θ̅Υ εγεννηθησαν
14 και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν και εθεασαμεθα την δοξαν αυτου δοξαν ως μονογενους παρα πατρος πληρης χαριτος και αληθειας
15 ιωαννης μαρτυρει περι αυτου και κεκραγεν λεγων ουτος ην | ο ειπων | οπισω μου ερχομενος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν οτι πρωτος μου ην
16 οτι εκ του πληρωματος αυτου ημεις παντες ελαβομεν και χαριν αντι χαριτος
17 οτι ο νομος δια μωυσεως εδοθη η χαρις και η αληθεια δια Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ εγενετο
18 Θ̅Ν ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης Θ̅Ϲ |*| ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο

(|*| T/R and Byzantine text types contain υιος instead of Θ̅Ϲ)
Examples of Elohim rendered as θειος (θειον, divinity, divine) in the Septuagint.

Exodus 31:3 LXX-Septuagint
3 και ενεπλησα αυτον πνευμα θειον σοφιας και συνεσεως και επιστημης εν παντι εργω

Exodus 35:31 LXX-Septuagint
31 και ενεπλησεν αυτον πνευμα θειον σοφιας και συνεσεως και επιστημης παντων

Tentative reading:

John 1:1-18
1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with τον Θ̅Ν, and Θ̅Ϲ was the Logos:
2 the same was in the beginning with τον Θ̅Ν.
3 All things came to be by way of him, and without him came to be not even one thing that has come to be.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of the men: [mankind]
5 and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness perceives it not.
6 There came to be a man having been [→] sent παρα Θ̅Υ, his name [→ having been] Iohanne:
7 the same came for a witness, that he might testify concerning the light, that all might believe by way of him.
8 That one was not the light, contrariwise, that he might testify concerning the light,
9 which was the true light that illuminates every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world by way of him came to be, and the world knew him not:
11 to his own he came, and [those] his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, unto them he gave authority to become offspring of Θ̅Υ, to those believing-trusting into his name,
13 those not by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, neither by the will of man, but from [out of] Θ̅Υ having been born.
14 And the Logos came to be flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld-perceived his glory, glory as of the one-of-a-kind with the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 Iohanne testifies concerning him, and he has cried, saying, This was the one who coming behind me, has come to be in front of me: for he was before me!
16 For out of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace:
17 because the Torah was given by way of Mosheh, the grace and the truth came to be by way of Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ.
18 No one has seen Θ̅Ν at any time: the one-of-a-kind Θ̅Ϲ/Son, he who exists in the bosom of the Father, that one has expounded [the Father, Elohim, (Θ̅Ν)].

Because of the Nomina Sacra one cannot tell in John 1:1 whether Θ̅Ϲ is to be understood as Θεος, Θεοτης, Θειος, or Θειοτης without a significant amount of scripture understanding, (testimony is spirit and the Testimony of the Father, His Word, is His Spirit, the Spirit of the Father: and they are inseparable just as the one-of-a-kind Elohim/Son is ever-always existing in the bosom of the Father, (John 1:18).

 

[ElieG12]

The Bible says "The Word was with God" and "God was the Word", and then says "the Word became flesh and lived among us." Later, it says "No one has seen God".

It doesn't say anywhere that "God became flesh." In fact, in Phil. 2:6,7 I learned that although Jesus had the form of God before being born as a human, he emptied himself to be in the form of a slave, a human being subject to his parents, the Mosaic Law, the rulers of the nation, and human needs. One form when he is in heaven and a very different form when he is a human.

Phil. 2:6,7
Although he was existing in God’s form (...) he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.

To believe that Jesus had some "divinity" when he was human, despite Scripture saying just the opposite, is to deny the Bible in order to defend traditions.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Because of the Nomina Sacra one cannot tell in John 1:1 whether Θ̅Ϲ is to be understood as Θεος, Θεοτης, Θειος, or Θειοτης without a significant amount of scripture understanding, (testimony is spirit and the Testimony of the Father, His Word, is His Spirit, the Spirit of the Father: and they are inseparable just as the one-of-a-kind Elohim-Son is ever-always existing in the bosom of the Father, (John 1:18).

John presents the Logos as existing eternally with God, perfectly manifesting God’s character, mind, and purpose, and revealing God to humanity (εξηγήσατο) through Jesus Christ. However, the text does not establish that the Logos pre-existed in the form of flesh as Christ exists today.

Assuming such pre-existence creates tension with Hebrews 2:10, which states that Christ was “made perfect through suffering.” This passage indicates that Christ’s perfection, his full ability to save, represent, and empathize with humanity, was achieved through his human experiences, not prior to them. John’s theology, therefore, emphasizes the Logos manifested in flesh, highlighting what Christ was fully human (nature) and what he became (eternal) came through the resurrection (clothed with immortality). By rising from the dead, Jesus is declared the Son of God with power, immortality, and divine nature, demonstrating that the Logos’ divinity is expressed both through the resurrected Christ and through his pre-existent human flesh, in which he manifested God’s character, rather than His nature.

Whether the Logos was revealed through Christ’s human, suffering flesh, or fully in the exalted Christ (glorious nature), it remains the work of God’s divine expression and reason (Logos)

Duality of nature's provides no distinction in the transition from one nature to another.

Therefore Jesus was the firstborn, firstbegbotton, first fruits from the dead to receive what Peter discribes below:

2 Peter 1:4 "by which he (God) has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire."

The same corruption Jesus was promised he would not see (though possible!)

HT.

 

[ElieG12]

John presents the Logos as existing eternally with God (...)

HT.

Some people imagine that John says what his own mind tells them but, he doesn't say that anywhere.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Some people imagine that John says what his own mind tells them but, he doesn't say that anywhere.

God's powerful Word (Logos) is Him, His Character and Power - it's why John did not use Jesus' name though I think John knew the Lord's name

 

[PS95]

Your belief in hypostasis leads to this kind of failure. How can you reconcile the apostles’ teaching on Christ’s nature while insisting on duality? What’s striking is that you haven’t even attempted to do so, such a belief is futile and impossible to prove from Scripture.

Given this reality, you have two choices: acknowledge it, as many Trinitarian theologians already have, or become a false accuser.

I've informed you multiple times that because deny that Jesus had any existence prior to coming in the flesh- that it's absolutely futile to go any further with you. You fail at go.
When members stop replying to you, it is solely because they finally see who you are and what you do to scriptures and are sickened by all of it and your gnosis arrogance.

You Christadelphians are like the JWs who also post incognito masquerading as Christians who agree with the SOF. You are deceitful from the get go.
Yet, you arrogantly goat them by saying they are stumped by your delusional brilliance when they don't reply again. That is your narcissism and you then repeatedly post to them even when asked to stop. You crave attention have a childish fit when you aren't heard.
You don't get it HL- people have had enough of your lies.

 

[Hiddenthings]

In support of dak's opening remarks regarding directional manifestation...

" and dwelt among us"

“Tabernacled” cf. Exodus 25:8–9. Just as God instructed the construction of the tabernacle, Immanuel is depicted as a sanctuary (Isaiah 8:14; Exodus 33:9; 40:35). Both as a child and as a man, Jesus was established on earth (out of men) as the perfect tabernacle or temple, in which the glory of the Father dwelled (John 2:19–21; Matthew 12:6).

Every piece of context in John 1 speaks to agency.

 

[ElieG12]

The Word in John 1:1 was another spirit person next to God, not an abstract thing.
We know that because before writing John 1, John already knew that the Word is a name of Jesus in heaven:

Rev. 19:11 I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse. And the one seated on it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. 12 His eyes are a fiery flame, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, 13 and he is clothed with an outer garment stained with blood, and he is called by the name The Word of God. 14 Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. 15 And out of his mouth protrudes a sharp, long sword with which to strike the nations, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. Moreover, he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his outer garment, yes, on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

The Word was a spirit person, and later a person of flesh and blood, until he died.

Could God no longer speak?... suddenly become mute and unable to express any further words when the Word became flesh?

Matt. 3:17 Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

 

[Hiddenthings]

I've informed you multiple times that because deny that Jesus had any existence prior to coming in the flesh- that it's absolutely futile to go any further with you. You fail at go.
When members stop replying to you, it is solely because they finally see who you are and what you do to scriptures and are sickened by all of it and your gnosis arrogance.

You Christadelphians are like the JWs who also post incognito masquerading as Christians who agree with the SOF. You are deceitful from the get go.
Yet, you arrogantly goat them by saying they are stumped by your delusional brilliance when they don't reply again. That is your narcissism and you then repeatedly post to them even when asked to stop. You crave attention have a childish fit when you aren't heard.
You don't get it HL- people have had enough of your lies.

This is not even special pleading! If you cannot engage with the content of this thread, feel free to move to another that suits you better. Surely, you have some influence in this forum, why not use it constructively?