Was the "Word" (According to the Gospel of John) "Made Flesh"?

Or is this a mistranslation?
The verse where people get this idea is mainly John 1:14, though there is something that looks like the same basic concept in the first verse of the first letter of John.
I want to start first with the Gospel version of the story of the Word.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

The argument for the reading of the word being make flesh hinges on the Greek word, egeneto, in the verse, between the word, flesh, and the clause, dwelt among us.
To illustrate my argument, I will be showing every one of the 200 verses in the New Testament where this word, egeneto, is found, and showing how it is used in each verse, and then to point out that it never once is used to describe one thing turning into another thing in a physical or even a spiritual way but only in a general, conceptual way, where it is implying that there is a change in circumstances.
I have a few that I have worked on a bit, so I will start with those and add more later as I progress.

Mathew 7:28 Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, (implied in the concept that Jesus' teaching brought about the astonishment of the crowd)

Mathew 8:24 A windstorm arose on the sea, so great that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. (implied in the concept that before the narration finds itself in the story timeline, there was no storm, and then, in the “present”, there was a storm)

Mathew 8:26 And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, you of little faith?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a dead calm.

Mathew 9:10 And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. (implied in that Jesus was sitting there eating, and it just so happened that there were also sinners and tax collectors in the house)

Mathew 11:1 Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities. (implied here by the concept that before he went off to the cities, he had to finish teaching the disciples)

Mathew 11:26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. (implied in the concept that these things happened because it was willed by God)

reply to post by jmdewey60

Ideally, you should be looking at examples where the verb has two nouns associated with it, both in the nominative case; as in John, it is preceded both by LOGOS and by SARX.
It would appear, on the face of it, that LOGOS is the subject of both verbs in that sentence, viz. the EGENETO and the following ESKENOSAN (dwelt).
Any proposed new translation has got to account for that arrangement.

Incidentally, the commentators that I've seen tend to interpret that "became" not so much as a change into something new, but more as an addition. One might say that John Kennedy became President without ceasing to be John Kennedy, and that's how they would understand it.

What exactly are you trying to prove to us regarding this statement in John's gospel ?

I admit that I have a very hard time--using basic reading comprehension--understanding the Trinity concept, not to mention that it wasn't codified until much later in history.

John, however, is an obstacle to overcome in any such musings. Thanks for posting. I'll explore your hypothesis further.

Mathew 13:53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he left that place. (implied in the concept that his leaving was caused by his being finished)

Mathew 17:2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. (here you see being described the change in conditions that resulted from the first mentioned thing, which is the transfiguration. As long as the first phenomenon was taking place, the circumstances caused his clothes to appear as if they were white, but once the phenomenon which was changing the circumstances ceased, his clothes would have gone back to its normal appearance, having never actually experienced a physical change)

Mathew 19:1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. (implied is the concept that Jesus’ “having finished” changed circumstances which allowed him to leave)

Mathew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? (implied in the concept that the rejection took place because of a circumstance, which was that The Lord's will brought about a certain condition in which the “builders” could not comprehend what they were looking at)

Mathew 26:1 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, (implied in the concept that finishing saying one thing brought about a change in condition to where he could say another thing)

reply to post by DISRAELI

Ideally, you should be looking at examples where the verb has two nouns associated with it, both in the nominative case; as in John, it is preceded both by LOGOS and by SARX.
It would appear, on the face of it, that LOGOS is the subject of both verbs in that sentence, viz. the EGENETO and the following ESKENOSAN (dwelt).
Any proposed new translation has got to account for that arrangement.

Incidentally, the commentators that I've seen tend to interpret that "became" not so much as a change into something new, but more as an addition. One might say that John Kennedy became President without ceasing to be John Kennedy, and that's how they would understand it.

You seem to have a more educated view that the vast majority of people so you might not learn much or anything from me that you don't already know but the problem is that there are all these other people who don't know anything but what they read in a single English translation.
I plan on looking at every verse that uses the Greek word normally translated as "became" in this verse.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Do you plan to look at other forms of the verb?
I've got an old lexicon with a massive entry on the verb GINOMAI, so I might be calling on its services later in the discussion.

reply to post by Azadok

What exactly are you trying to prove to us regarding this statement in John's gospel ?

I don't expect to be able to prove anything.
I want to eventually present my argument that saying slogans about Jesus being the word is counterproductive and that this is not the main point of the Gospel but that Jesus is the name of God. The word is there, but the word was with God, as in God as a material human being. The word was what was coming out of his mouth as he spoke.
The fine line is not to be drawn between Jesus and the Word, but between Jesus and God. Where is the distinction between them?

reply to post by jmdewey60


You seem to have a more educated view that the vast majority of people so you might not learn much or anything from me that you don't already know but the problem is that there are all these other people who don't know anything but what they read in a single English translation.
I plan on looking at every verse that uses the Greek word normally translated as "became" in this verse.



OP I asked a question with Regards to your post and you ignored it , I am interested to what you are getting at but was looking for a more in depth answer as to why ?

Your response came just before my post so thank you very much.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Azadok

 

What exactly are you trying to prove to us regarding this statement in John's gospel ?

I don't expect to be able to prove anything.
I want to eventually present my argument that saying slogans about Jesus being the word is counterproductive and that this is not the main point of the Gospel but that Jesus is the name of God. The word is there, but the word was with God, as in God as a material human being. The word was what was coming out of his mouth as he spoke.
The fine line is not to be drawn between Jesus and the Word, but between Jesus and God. Where is the distinction between them?

edit on 25-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

There is no distinction between them , as Jesus stated to His decipels " if you have looked upon me you have seen God"

And as far as Jesus being the word I think of when the devil tempted Him and Jesus said man does not live by bread alone but on every word of God.

reply to post by Azadok


Perhaps hes refering to "an image" of God... perfected?

Mathew 27:45 From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. (or another way to say, circumstances changed to where the condition was darkness)

Mathew 28:2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. (the same concept here of a change in circumstances causing a change in condition, first there was no angel, then there was an angel, where the earlier condition was normal, and the second condition was a earthquake)

Mark 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (again you see the implied concept of a change in circumstance, where the first condition is no one is there, the the next condition where there is someone there, namely John)

Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. (the conditions changed within a finite number of days, caused by a circumstance that Jesus had come to the Jordan)

Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (here you have to consider the two instances of the word, heavens, to include the one in the previous verse, where our word under study is used to connect them in a cause and effect way, where first it was normal, then it was split in two, changing the circunstances with regards to the heavens. The conditions changed as a result, which our word lends the implied concept, first there was no voice but in the created new condition, there was a voice)

reply to post by Akragon

Perhaps hes refering to "an image" of God... perfected?

By "he", I'm guessing you mean, me, as in what I really meant.
It is what I call "high concept".
The name of a person meant more than just a data bit representing the pronunciation of a word, but included a description of one's character.
Jesus is the living breathing name of God, and in a way is God, meaning as much as we can and will know of God only comes through Jesus.

reply to post by jmdewey60


actually i was refering to Jesus when it said, "if you've seen me you've seen the father"...

I don't really believe we need to know the name of God... i believe if you know his son, God knows when you're speaking to him...

Thats why i just say God when speaking to or about him...

reply to post by DISRAELI

Do you plan to look at other forms of the verb?
I've got an old lexicon with a massive entry on the verb GINOMAI, so I might be calling on its services later in the discussion.

At my current rate of progress, it looks like it is going to take so many days just to get through these two hundred verses.
I was not planning on getting into other forms of the verb because the way I see it, they may as well be an entirely different verb, despite having a shared ancestry or derivation.
While I'm plodding along with my current task of showing how this one word is used, feel free to bring up any particular verse you may have in mind, rather than waiting for me to eventually come on to it.

reply to post by Akragon

. . . I don't really believe we need to know the name of God...

Right, I agree with you, that we need to know the son, and why the NT just calls Him God, and the Father of Jesus. The name we are given is the name of his Son through whom we see God.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Yes, I can see it would be a big task to bring in the other forms.
What might be useful from that lexicon is other examples of the subject-become-predicate combination.
E.g. the first one that catches my eye is Satan's comment about the stones being commanded to become bread.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

. . . I don't really believe we need to know the name of God...

Right, I agree with you, that we need to know the son, and why the NT just calls Him God, and the Father of Jesus. The name we are given is the name of his Son through whom we see God.

See thats where i find error... especially when it comes to "new converts" who don't actually understand certian concepts... i find that leading "those that do not know" astray...

Jesus made an important distinction between himself and his father... They are one but still seperate "entities" if you will...

Theres a little piece from a website that always seems to echo in my mind...

After giving a basic definition of God from various religions the artical ends with this...

"God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being."

reluctant-messenger.com...

Jesus being a Part of God... a human in Gods purest form... even as perfect as WE can possibly be...

But calling Jesus the one true God... is idoltary in my opinion...

We can not know everything about God... our minds just can't do it... but we can know what hes like through the words of his son... in that case Jesus IS the word of God...

Mark 2:23 One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. (the conditions on this Sabbath were modified by the circumstance of their being in a grain-field)

Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath; (here things get troublesome with the combination of our word with the word, dia. This generally means something like, “through”, where in this case we can consider it to mean, “on account of”, so you can think of a day which could have two possible conditions, 1. normal or 2. Sabbath being the choices. The circumstance that could cause the change in condition would be something such as, to help people have a good life. So here the characters in the story find themselves in a day, and the nature of this day, as perceived by this particular character, is the result of a circumstance which is God’s will for us to have a better life. The day itself is no different from any other day but the circumstance on that particular day is only in how the people perceive it, for whatever reason, in this case a general fuzzy notion that God’s will lends us to have a way of seeing this particular day as being different)