Did Jesus say he was God???

[Popeyesays]

Hi Scott,

What did John mean then when he recorded this early Christian hymn at the outset of his Gospel?

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b] 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (John 1)

That there was God and the Logos (Word), being the creative impulse. "In the beginning" means at the start of Creation. Before that moment there was only God.

That Logos (creative impulse) was the cause of everything that is, or was, or will be.
God commanded and it was.

Then it goes on to testify as to John the Baptist and his purpose.

Lots of people think 17 means "grace" is more important than the "law". The fact is that the sentence implies that both are co-equal--placing Moses and Jesus on a level plane.

IMHO, of course. YMMV.

By the way, which translation of the first chapter of the Gospel of John is this? I like it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[astarath]

Yes! PHew I love the easy ones!

 

[lunamoth]

That there was God and the Logos (Word), being the creative impulse. "In the beginning" means at the start of Creation. Before that moment there was only God.

That Logos (creative impulse) was the cause of everything that is, or was, or will be.
God commanded and it was.

Yes, that's fine for the first part of the passage, but then it goes on to say that the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. I don't see how you can insert "creative impluse" there. The Word was God and the Word became flesh. It's interesting to delve into different layers of meaning, but I just don't think it can be avoided that John (the evangelist) was here testifying that Jesus was God in the flesh. Whether you accept that or not, it's the point of the passage.

Lots of people think 17 means "grace" is more important than the "law". The fact is that the sentence implies that both are co-equal--placing Moses and Jesus on a level plane.

Actually, although these are presented chronologically here, the rhythm of the Bible puts grace before the law.

It is important for an understanding of both the continuing tension within the story of Israel in the OT and the identical tension within the life of the Christian church, that we note carefully the order in which the two parts of the Exodus/Sinai drama occur. First God delivers the people, and then God gives them the Law. God's grace, freely given in love to Israel, is shown in the deliverance; only after this does God give to Israel the Law, which provides the structure within which the people of God are to live their lives.

To maintain the external structures of religion is not enough if the very heart of the relationship between Israel and YHWH has been forgotten. The Law is not a set of rules to be followed in order to become worthy of election as God's people, but the framework for a life that is worthy of the people of God.

By the way, which translation of the first chapter of the Gospel of John is this? I like it.

NIV. Just what I have a handy search engine link to. I've come to prefer the NSRV.

Regards,
Scott

Always a pleasure to converse with you.
Laurie

 

[astarath]

Yes, that's fine for the first part of the passage, but then it goes on to say that the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. I don't see how you can insert "creative impluse" there. The Word was God and the Word became flesh. It's interesting to delve into different layers of meaning, but I just don't think it can be avoided that John (the evangelist) was here testifying that Jesus was God in the flesh. Whether you accept that or not, it's the point of the passage.


Actually, although these are presented chronologically here, the rhythm of the Bible puts grace before the law.



NIV. Just want I have a hand search engine link to. I've come to prefer the NSRV.

Always a pleasure to converse with you.
Laurie

Ummm... You are going to need to offer me a proof for this as almost every person of importance in the new testament is in agreement that Grace offered to us by the sacrifice on the cross came into existence after Christ died! Which would of course place the coming of grace several thousand years after the giving of the Law!

 

[doppelganger]

Yes, that's fine for the first part of the passage, but then it goes on to say that the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. I don't see how you can insert "creative impluse" there. The Word was God and the Word became flesh. It's interesting to delve into different layers of meaning, but I just don't think it can be avoided that John (the evangelist) was here testifying that Jesus was God in the flesh. Whether you accept that or not, it's the point of the passage.

No, but it's not limited to Jesus being the logos become flesh necessarily, either. Your own self-conscious awareness is a facet of the logos become flesh. And the universe is created by the power of your thoughts about it as the object to your subject. It's no accident that logos is often translated "word" though that doesn't completely convey the full meaning, it gives a hint to the philosophical roots of the logos.

 

[lunamoth]

Ummm... You are going to need to offer me a proof for this as almost every person of importance in the new testament is in agreement that Grace offered to us by the sacrifice on the cross came into existence after Christ died! Which would of course place the coming of grace several thousand years after the giving of the Law!

You don't think God showed any grace prior to the Resurrection? :areyoucra

 

[astarath]

God showed mercy. Mercy and Grace are 2 different concepts biblically. Grace did not come into existence until the pentecost!

 

[doppelganger]

God showed mercy. Mercy and Grace are 2 different concepts biblically. Grace did not come into existence until the pentecost!

Grace necessarily has been around since the first person thought something that meant "I am."

 

[astarath]

There has not always been a redemption of sin by acknowledgement of Christ's sacrifice which is the definition of Grace in the bible!

 

[lunamoth]

No, but it's not limited to Jesus being the logos become flesh necessarily, either. Your own self-conscious awareness is a facet of the logos become flesh. And the universe is created by the power of your thoughts about it as the object to your subject.

Another interesting interpretation, but I highly doubt that's what the Evangelist was getting at here. John's Gospel is one of the later Gospels, written after a fair amount of theology about Christ had developed in the Christian community (and of course I will stipulate that it was the community that was proto-orthodox). I don't know nearly enough about the interaction between Greek and Hebrew theology to discuss how John came to this conclusion, but I would bet it also has to do with Ceasar also claiming to be god. However it came to be formulated, John is saying that Jesus is God in the flesh.

 

[lunamoth]

There has not always been a redemption of sin by acknowledgement of Christ's sacrifice which is the definition of Grace in the bible!

That's not the definition of grace in the Bible, although it may be one definition. Grace is favor by God in spite of lack of merit.

 

[astarath]

Right but you cant even be sure that it is John who wrote the Gospel! The orthodoxy merely placed the name they felt was essentially the best guess for the role! Even still I am in agreeance with the answer just not how you got there!

 

[astarath]

That's not the definition of grace in the Bible, although it may be one definition. Grace is favor by God in spite of lack of merit.

Indeed and in order to define that which has merit one would need the Law (the standard by which the definition of sin came into being). The Law needs to come first in order for one to judge the lack of it's merit!

 

[astarath]

I would also argue that is indeed the definition of grace in the bible!

 

[doppelganger]

Another interesting interpretation, but I highly doubt that's what the Evangelist was getting at here. John's Gospel is one of the later Gospels, written after a fair amount of theology about Christ had developed in the Christian community (and of course I will stipulate that it was the community that was proto-orthodox).

Actually, there's a fair amount of evidence that "John" is a rework of an early "Gnostic" gospel, possibly written by Cerinthus and modified in the proto-Orthodox era (latter 2nd century to include bits of anti-Gnostic polemic).

Here's a short summary from Early Christian Writings:

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

If the preamble was part of the original work, then . . . :rainbow1:

 

[astarath]

Romans 5:17

 

[lunamoth]

Actually, there's a fair amount of evidence that "John" is a rework of an early "Gnostic" gospel, possibly written by Cerinthus and modified in the proto-Orthodox era (latter 2nd century to include bits of anti-Gnostic polemic). For more details, check out Pagels' Beyond Belief.

Here's a short summary though from Early Christian Writings:

If the preamble was part of the original work, then . . . :rainbow1:

I was vaguely remembering that even as I was posting...that some claim John to be originally gnostic. But the preamble does not seem gnostic in the sense that I understand it. Gnosticism tended to view the flesh as the source of evil. Why would they write that the word became flesh?

 

[astarath]

There also exists scripture in the gnostic texts in which God entered the flesh in order to teach the people the futility of it and how to ascend from it! Principally the Gospel of Thomas

 

[Popeyesays]

Luna said:
"Yes, that's fine for the first part of the passage, but then it goes on to say that the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. I don't see how you can insert "creative impluse" there. The Word was God and the Word became flesh. It's interesting to delve into different layers of meaning, but I just don't think it can be avoided that John (the evangelist) was here testifying that Jesus was God in the flesh. Whether you accept that or not, it's the point of the passage."

But surely you can see that "flesh" is just another word for "substance" in the cosmic sense. Creation gave the impulse to create "meat" and everything else.

I can give an idea flesh. Flesh: definition "18.to give dimension, substance, or reality to (often fol. by out): The playwright fleshed out the characters.

Regards,
Scott

 

[astarath]

Does that mean that there are 17 different definitions before that most convenient one?