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

reply to post by jmdewey60


To be honest I'm not sure the question you're trying to answer, but here is something I've always thought about the Logos / Word terminology. (Sorry I don't mean to be getting off topic.)

In college I remember taking a computer class where the professor showed a connection between parsing a grammar and computation. Anyway, that has always made me think Logos is talking about logic and reason and the physical laws of the universe. And maybe the Holy Spirit is connected with the quantum mechanical random side of the universe. I think Jesus said something about nobody being able to predict the behavior of the Holy Spirit. I think the random side of the universe is where life comes from, because otherwise we would have a clockwork universe.

reply to post by cloudyday

. . . I'm not sure the question you're trying to answer . . .

Why people insist on equating Jesus with The Word, though there is nothing anywhere other than the one verse that even looks like it might say than, while it does not seem to even say that on close examination?
The Word was God. I don't see why it is people can't get that.
God was with Jesus, in that what Jesus said was what God wanted to say to us.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Why people insist on equating Jesus with The Word

This is where we can learn from the parallel examples of "Noun EGENETO noun", which I've been pointing out.
In those other cases, I've suggested, the meaning of "Noun became noun" is that the first-named gains an additional quality which it did not have before.

As in "the stone EGENETO the head of the corner", where the stone gains whatever quality was necessary to make it head of the corner, without losing its previous qualities as "stone". The status of being "head of the corner" is now incorporated in the nature of that stone, without exhausting our understanding of it.

I propose that this parallel works exactly with "Word EGENETO flesh". The Word "became flesh" by gaining an extra quality. We can understand the man Jesus as the quality which the Word gained in order to become flesh. Following the analogy of the other usages, we ought then to understand Jesus as part of the nature of the Word, incorporated into it.

However, it also follows from the analogies that "Jesus" doesn't exhaust our understanding of the Word. The stone that became head of the corner did not cease to be a stone. When John Kennedy became President, he did not cease to be John Kennedy. When the Word became flesh, it did not cease to be what it was before it became flesh. It simply gained something.

The Christian view of this verse has been based on the understanding that this instance of "EGENETO flesh" is both unique and permanent (the stone remains head of the corner, and no other stone has this position). This leads ultimately- and, I think, inexorably- to the Chalcedonian definition of Christ or the Son as a combination of two components, the pre-existent divinity and the human Jesus. The "Word" in this verse answers to the combined "Christ" of that definition.

On that basis, "Jesus is the Word" is slightly inaccurate, as an understanding of Christian theology, and "Christ is the Word" would be more exact.

reply to post by jmdewey60


That doesn't make sense though.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

I'm sorry but, In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God, just sounds redudant and wrong.....

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by cloudyday

 

. . . I'm not sure the question you're trying to answer . . .

Why people insist on equating Jesus with The Word, though there is nothing anywhere other than the one verse that even looks like it might say than, while it does not seem to even say that on close examination?
The Word was God. I don't see why it is people can't get that.
God was with Jesus, in that what Jesus said was what God wanted to say to us.

I think there is more to the Word than simply the words Jesus spoke. In Genesis, God created the universe by saying "let there be this", "let there be that". The physical laws like gravity, space, and time were actually created at the time of the Big Bang. I think space is expanding at the speed of light.

Also there is all the emphasis in the Bible on the Law of the Lord which I think is a closer match for the Word. The disciples didn't try very hard to preserve the sayings of Jesus in my opinion, so they probably didn't think they were all that important. (All we have are those pitifully few parables.)

So that's my argument for equating the Word with Physics. On your real question, I don't think we should equate Jesus with the Word (whatever that meant to John).

reply to post by DISRAELI

In those other cases, I've suggested, the meaning of "Noun became noun" is that the first-named gains an additional quality which it did not have before.

I'm not done looking at all those verses. I ended up pretty tired after just making the list of all the verses with egeneto in them. The complete list is viewable at readingthebibleingreek.blog.com...

reply to post by cloudyday

I think there is more to the Word than simply the words Jesus spoke.

The fact that there was the person, Jesus, and he was there in that place, doing those things, and saying those things, was the work of God.

reply to post by Iason321

. . . just sounds redudant and wrong.....

It would make sense if at the time John was written, there was this one group on this side saying, "The Logos is . . .", then there was this other group, over on that side saying, "We believe the Logos is . . .".

I think the nature of the Gospel according to John was the fix to correct a lot of misconceptions involved in cosmology and theology and philosophy, in how it related to Jesus.