Jesus "the Word made flesh"?

[humbly speaking] May it be fitting to understand "the Word (Jesus)" as being in the same context as "the Voice (God part of the Trinity)"? ....so in a just fashion to save His Breath(men) [Gen 2:7] in an attempt not to change(because God cannot change) but to provide a path for men to understand their importance within that breath(life) and to be reconnected with Him through Thought, Speech, and Character(worker) in His Image?

Password said:

[humbly speaking] May it be fitting to understand "the Word (Jesus)" as being in the same context as "the Voice (God part of the Trinity)"? ....so in a just fashion to save His Breath(men) [Gen 2:7] in an attempt not to change(because God cannot change) but to provide a path for men to understand their importance within that breath(life) and to be reconnected with Him through Thought, Speech, and Character(worker) in His Image?

Click to expand...

Sort of. It's a metaphor, so the interpretation is a little up for grabs. I think that the "word" is the promise of God to make all things new. In Jesus's death and resurrection, this promise is embodied in a literal sense = the Word made Flesh.

angellous_evangellous said:

Sort of. It's a metaphor, so the interpretation is a little up for grabs. I think that the "word" is the promise of God to make all things new. In Jesus's death and resurrection, this promise is embodied in a literal sense = the Word made Flesh.

Click to expand...

ok. thanks for your feedback.

Password said:

[humbly speaking] May it be fitting to understand "the Word (Jesus)" as being in the same context as "the Voice (God part of the Trinity)"? ....so in a just fashion to save His Breath(men) [Gen 2:7] in an attempt not to change(because God cannot change) but to provide a path for men to understand their importance within that breath(life) and to be reconnected with Him through Thought, Speech, and Character(worker) in His Image?

Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I do not subscribe to the doctrine of Trinity, so my interpretation of this scripture may not be what you were expecting from the Christian perspective.

My interpretation of "The Word became flesh" is that it is a metaphor. Jesus was not literally a "word" (he was a person), but he was the one who brought us the word (God's message of salvation through his son Jesus Christ). Since it was always God's plan for humanity to have a path to salvation, he always intended on giving us his word. Christ was always intended to deliver that message for us. Therefore, when Christ was born, the word "became flesh". Not literally, but metaphorically speaking. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The word is the MESSAGE, and Jesus delivered that message to us. I believe my interpretation is supported by the following passages:

Matthew 7:24
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Matthew 7:26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

Thanks for sharing your faith.

password said:

thanks for sharing your faith.

Click to expand...

np

angellous_evangellous said:

I think that the "word" is the promise of God to make all things new.

Click to expand...

Actually, isn't the fourth Gospel fairly Hellenistic in character? It was written in Greek. In contemporary Greek philosophy, the divine Logos had a fairly specific meaning. Philo called the Logos the "first born of God" before Christianity.
If we divorce the phrase "the Word was [a] god" from the modern trinitarian Christian perspective and take it from the perspective of the Hellenistic Jew who wrote John, we get many more interesting interpretations.

theosis said:

Actually, isn't the fourth Gospel fairly Hellenistic in character? It was written in Greek. In contemporary Greek philosophy, the divine Logos had a fairly specific meaning. Philo called the Logos the "first born of God" before Christianity.
If we divorce the phrase "the Word was [a] god" from the modern trinitarian Christian perspective and take it from the perspective of the Hellenistic Jew who wrote John, we get many more interesting interpretations.

Click to expand...

All of the Gospels were written in Greek.

However, I agree with pretty much everything else you said.

theosis said:

Actually, isn't the fourth Gospel fairly Hellenistic in character? It was written in Greek. In contemporary Greek philosophy, the divine Logos had a fairly specific meaning. Philo called the Logos the "first born of God" before Christianity.

If we divorce the phrase "the Word was [a] god" from the modern trinitarian Christian perspective and take it from the perspective of the Hellenistic Jew who wrote John, we get many more interesting interpretations.

Click to expand...

If there's a divorce, who gets the kids? Surely not Philo, he didn't write the Gospel of John -- and while John is "Hellenistic," Philo didn't write it.

The idea of the logos is pretty old in Greek philosophy, and to nail Philo to John is more than a little bit arbitrary.

At the end of the day, John's Gospel, like the rest of the New Testament, isn't Greek philosophy and it isn't Judaism, but something else. Earliest Christianity, perhaps.

angellous_evangellous said:

If there's a divorce, who gets the kids? Surely not Philo, he didn't write the Gospel of John -- and while John is "Hellenistic," Philo didn't write it.

The idea of the logos is pretty old in Greek philosophy, and to nail Philo to John is more than a little bit arbitrary.

At the end of the day, John's Gospel, like the rest of the New Testament, isn't Greek philosophy and it isn't Judaism, but something else. Earliest Christianity, perhaps.

Click to expand...

So the word "Logos" in John was used in an entirely innovative way that jives with Christian interpretations centuries later? I am not convinced. It may not have been Orthodox Judaism but in that period Christianity was still a heterodox sect -- the author of John would have used the language and symbology of his faith, Hellenistic Judaism.
Philo is a good representative of the kind of faith the gospels author would have professed before encountering the story of Jesus.

angellous_evangellous said:

If there's a divorce, who gets the kids? Surely not Philo, he didn't write the Gospel of John -- and while John is "Hellenistic," Philo didn't write it.

The idea of the logos is pretty old in Greek philosophy, and to nail Philo to John is more than a little bit arbitrary.

At the end of the day, John's Gospel, like the rest of the New Testament, isn't Greek philosophy and it isn't Judaism, but something else. Earliest Christianity, perhaps.

Click to expand...

It makes no sense John used Logos in a completely unrelated way to Philo's Logos. He used it because it was a good starting point, taking a familiar understanding of logos to use it to communicate his idea of who Jesus was and the importance of his message. To understand John's logos, you have to understand Philo's logos. So to answer the question if there's a divorce, who gets the kids? Both parents do. The DNA is shared. But in reality, the child is his own person ultimately, and not possessed by either parent.

Windwalker said:

It makes no sense John used Logos in a completely unrelated way to Philo's Logos. He used it because it was a good starting point, taking a familiar understanding of logos to use it to communicate his idea of who Jesus was and the importance of his message. To understand John's logos, you have to understand Philo's logos. So to answer the question if there's a divorce, who gets the kids? Both parents do. The DNA is shared. But in reality, the child is his own person ultimately, and not possessed by either parent.

Click to expand...

Very good points.

Password said:

[humbly speaking] May it be fitting to understand "the Word (Jesus)" as being in the same context as "the Voice (God part of the Trinity)"? ....so in a just fashion to save His Breath(men) [Gen 2:7] in an attempt not to change(because God cannot change) but to provide a path for men to understand their importance within that breath(life) and to be reconnected with Him through Thought, Speech, and Character(worker) in His Image?

Click to expand...

Password,
Take another tack for a moment, Please, and consider.
According to the Holy Scriptures, it seems that Jesus was the very first of all God's creations, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14. In several places the Bible tells us that God created all things through Jesus and FOR Jesus, 1Cor 8:6, Col 1:16,17, Heb 1:2. So, so LITTLE RATIOCINATION, God, Himself needs nothing, He is completely self sufficient, so He decided to create His son, and just as men do today, He put His son in second command of all the other things that God created. God wanted other intelligent creatures to enjoy life so He created angels.
Remember God, Jehovah was the first cause, which makes Jesus the second cause, more than likely giving the instructions from God to all other angels, therefore Jesus became the WORD.
Here is an interesting point, at John 1;1,2, the scriptures speak about the WORD being with GOD in the beginning. This understanding is not exactly accurate. When a translator uses the word the, many times it is just for easy understanding. Actually there was no THE, just before beginning. Actually it was A beginning, not the, beginning. The beginning was when GOD created Jesus, so when GOD began to create other things it was actually a beginning, not the beginning. God used Jesus in the creation of all other things. Consider how this was, in the creation of the earth, Prov 8:22-31. Here Jesus was called the Master Workman, Prov 8:30.
The same problem comes to the for also at Genesis 1:1, where the scripture is translated as in the beginning, when actually it was a beginning, because GOD had already created Jesus untold eons before GOD created the Heavens and the earth, and Jesus was his WORD in all the creation, Ps 33:6,9, Ps 103:20,21.

Just who the WORD is can be easily seen by a comparison of John 1:1, 14, Rev 19:13.
Jesus was with God when God started the creation of material things, Gen 1:26-28.
It seems that Jesus was a helper in all the creation, after Jesus was first created, just as he was a master worker in the creation of the earth, Prov 8:22-31.
1Cor 8:6,Col 1:15,16, Heb 1:2, Rev 3:14.

jtartar,
Your faith has been considered, I'm not sure exactly where "a" and "the" make much difference in the untold spiritual realm. "a" meaning at the point of the first equation is "a" at the second, or not?