And the Word was with God (page 3)

Narkissos

Hellrider

John 1:3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created

I would rather translate:

All things came to be through him, and apart from him not one thing came to be. / That which came to be in him was life... [another sentence according to the oldest (Gnostic) attestations.]

but the Word is clearly stated as a creation.

I don't think so.

Gnostic thought would rather suggest emanation from the highest divine level (Ogdoades or Plèrôma) than creation. And the more orthodox concept of "begetting" is not very far from it actually. Anyway the origin of the logos is not discussed in the Johannine Prologue.

RubaDub

guess the easiest way to explain this would be to think of those mirrows in some bathrooms that are angled on the sides. By looking toward the side, you can actually see your back.
So in this case, the Lagos could be before God, or in front of God, but actually be looking at an angle, perhaps 45 degrees or so.

Should I take it that my earlier comments are not plausible or was it simply a knee-jerk reaction to avoid the obvious?

Rub a Dub

Narkissos

Les miroirs feraient bien de réfléchir davantage ("Mirrors had better reflect more") -- J. Cocteau, Orphée.

I've no idea of the right angle though but here's to Rub a Dub:

But he who, out of his desire for learning, has raised his head above the whole world begins to inquire concerning the Creator of the world who this being is who is so difficult to see and whose nature it is so difficult to conjecture, whether he is a body, or an incorporeal being, or something above these things, or whether he is a simple nature like a unit, or a compound being or any ordinary existing thing. And when he sees how difficult to ascertain, and how difficult to understand this is, he then prays to be allowed to learn from God himself who God is; for he has never hoped to be able to learn this from any other of the beings that are around him. But nevertheless, though inquiring into the essence of the living God he has heard nothing. For, says, God, "thou shalt see my back parts, but my face thou shalt not Behold."{Ex 33:23.} For it is sufficient for the wise man to know the consequences, and the things which are after God; but he who wishes to see the principal essence will be blinded by the exceeding brilliancy of his rays before he can see it.
Philo, On Flight and Finding, 164f.

LittleToe

If it were merely a mirror, wouldn't that be rather narcissistic?

jgnat

My theory is that people can't look at the face of God because WHO THEY ARE is reflected back at them; good, bad, and ugly. Who really wants to face themselves? Usually only the nuts and the saints. Which just happen to be the same folk who say they've seen God face to face.

Cygnus

I don't think the biblical record anywhere suggests the logos was created by God; rather it was always some part of him.

It is interesting that the John 1:14 doesn't say theos was made flesh, or the Son was made flesh, but logos was made flesh. A strong case for preexistence (eternal or created) could have been made here, but wasn't.

edited to add: I like "came to be through" better than "by" as well. The "he/him" trips me up though. I sure like "it" as the pronoun instead.

MAS*H

Sorry for being new, but I'm having trouble 'fixing' some of you guys down. Firstly I must say, I'm really enjoying reading the friendly banter on acient grammar, it's been a long time for me. Personally I gave up debating on such matters the moment I began to believe the bible was not in any way 'inspired of god'. It seemed ultimately fruitless to me to ponder such things if, as I believe, it's a collection of books written by men. With that view in mind, I felt I was debating what the writer's view of his God was, not a divine picture of God.

As I've recently joined the forum, I've been reading a lot of posts, names are becoming more familiar and I'm starting to understand peoples viewpoints. So my real question is, hands up if you believe the Bible is actually inspired and if so, how important an exact understanding of the bible line by line is in your belief system?

I know it's a cheeky request.. but I get frustrated when I can't formulate a clear picture in my mind of what's what!

Sorry for attempting a subject hijack. If you've not heard though, I'm a bit of a troll... and us trolls do this kind of thing.

Ug!

Hellrider

Narkissos:

but the Word is clearly stated as a creation.
I don't think so.
Gnostic thought would rather suggest emanation from the highest divine level (Ogdoades or Plèrôma) than creation. And the more orthodox concept of "begetting" is not very far from it actually.;Anyway the origin of the logos is not discussed in the Johannine Prologue.

If you`re right, then that changes everything. I always thought of John 1.3 as the best argument against the trinity-doctrine.

Cygnus

Well, MASH, I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, but sometimes I find it irresistable to talk about. Sometimes I (and others!) wish I'd shut up about it, but for some stupid reason I still have a desire to share my opinion on certain biblical topics and enjoy hearing others' opinons. The great thing about the internet is, I can always take a step back and leave it alone whenever I want, which isn't the case when you're a JW. Especially so tonight. I'm only posting this now because it's in-between periods of the hockey game I'm watching. If I was still a JW and the service/TMS meeting was tonight, I'd be stuck there.

Hellrider

Narkissos:

Gnostic thought would rather suggest emanation from the highest divine level (Ogdoades or Plèrôma) than creation. And the more orthodox concept of "begetting" is not very far from it actually. Anyway the origin of the logos is not discussed in the Johannine Prologue.

On the other hand: "Emanate" - "to flow from"...

"Begotten" - "came from"

...these words still mean that ... something came from something...do they not?

And the Word was with God

Share this