Why Didn't the Holy Spirit Know?

[rrobs]

I mean, please let me know if you want to discuss why I think John believed Jesus was God.

Are you thinking about John 1:1 for starters? I would be interested in what you have to say, but you should know that I don't change the word "Word" into "Jesus" in John 1:1 and I don't accept any doctrine that does. God uses every word in the scriptures in a very precise way. He could have said, "in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God" but He didn't say that.

It is up to us to determine what the "Word" which God used means. It does not mean "Jesus." It is the Greek word "logos" and it is better understood as a "plan" that God had in the beginning. That plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14) because he followed it to the last jot and tittle. That is why Jesus could say, "if you've seen me, you've seen the Father." Every heard the phrase, "if you seen one, you've seen them all." Did you literally see all of them? No. It's a commonly used figure of speech. In reality, there is no way an inanimate thing, a logos, can actually become a person, so it has to be a figure of speech.

Did you read John 20:31? It gives the reason John wrote his gospel. Notice it does not say he wrote so that we might know Jesus is God. Would not the rest of John conform to that clearly stated purpose?

Now I don't have to explain how God knew things Jesus didn't know, why God had to confer rights to Jesus, how God could die, and much more. I don't have to explain how one part of God can be subjected to another. That's be pretty hard.

1Cor 15:28,

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
​

Once John 1:1 is understood, the rest of the scriptures fall into place without the need to abandon the normal, universally agreed upon, meaning of words. We can use the words "father" and "son" the same way we always do. We do not need incredibly convoluted word twisting to make a father and a son the same person. If you call God an "essence" composed of three persons, you are reducing God to a thing, not a person.

I know you are sincere, but sincerity is not the standard for truth. We must let God's word speak for itself without introducing extraneous ideas such as those concocted by Greek philosophy and Egyptian mysticism. It is easy to verify via church history that the framers of the trinity doctrine were absolutely in love with Plato and his Pagan ideas. It is no secret for anyone who wants to know.

Paul warned us not to listen to anyone who preached another Jesus who he did not preach. He also said everyone had turned against him before he even died. The church went South real fast like, and for the most part they've never gotten back to what Paul preached. They still preach a Jesus based on Pagan doctrine and have yet to return to the one Paul and all the others in the NT preached.

God bless you brother!

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Are you thinking about John 1:1 for starters? I would be interested in what you have to say, but you should know that I don't change the word "Word" into "Jesus" in John 1:1 and I don't accept any doctrine that does. God uses every word in the scriptures in a very precise way. He could have said, "in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God" but He didn't say that.

It is up to us to determine what the "Word" which God used means. It does not mean "Jesus." It is the Greek word "logos" and it is better understood as a "plan" that God had in the beginning. That plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14) because he followed it to the last jot and tittle. That is why Jesus could say, "if you've seen me, you've seen the Father." Every heard the phrase, "if you seen one, you've seen them all." Did you literally see all of them? No. It's a commonly used figure of speech. In reality, there is no way an inanimate thing, a logos, can actually become a person, so it has to be a figure of speech.

So, the Greek word logos, which my Bible translates as Word, is more accurately translated as plan. That would mean that this statement of John’s from my Bible,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
​

Actually means this:

In the beginning was the Plan, and the Plan was with God, and the Plan was God.
​

Correct?

 

[rrobs]

So, the Greek word logos, which my Bible translates as Word, is more accurately translated as plan. That would mean that this statement of John’s from my Bible,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
​

Actually means this:

In the beginning was the Plan, and the Plan was with God, and the Plan was God.
​

Correct?

I over simplified to some degree, but that is much closer to what John was saying.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

I over simplified to some degree, but that is much closer to what John was saying.

Thanks! Simple is good for a start, I think, so that I can be sure I understand. Something else I wonder: The God John mentions in the first sentence of his gospel—is the Plan his, her or its Plan, or is it the Plan of someone or something other than the God John mentions?

 

[rrobs]

Thanks! Simple is good for a start, I think, so that I can be sure I understand. Something else I wonder: The God John mentions in the first sentence of his gospel—is the Plan his, her or its Plan, or is it the Plan of someone or something other than the God John mentions?

Well, according to John 4:24 God is spirit. That is why God is often referred to as Holy Spirit. No genders for spirits.

The God who created the universe gave His name as Yahweh to Moses. That would be the God referred to in John 1:1. That is the God that had a plan which was communicated to man via words. The word logos does include the idea of a word, but it really refers to the idea, or what was in the speakers mind when they spoke. That is where the idea of a plan comes to play. One thing is certain, it is not good to simply substitute the word "Jesus" for the logos.

​

Heb 1:1-2,

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;​

Until Jesus was born, God communicated His plan via the OT fathers and prophets. They were God's spokesman. But in these last days, i.e. after Jesus was born, the plan was shown in the living example of Jesus. He followed the plan to perfection, like none other before him. He came into this world free from sin and he remained so until the very end. That is why he was a perfect living copy of God's word, His plan.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Well, according to John 4:24 God is spirit. That is why God is often referred to as Holy Spirit. No genders for spirits.

The God who created the universe gave His name as Yahweh to Moses. That would be the God referred to in John 1:1. That is the God that had a plan which was communicated to man via words. The word logos does include the idea of a word, but it really refers to the idea, or what was in the speakers mind when they spoke. That is where the idea of a plan comes to play. One thing is certain, it is not good to simply substitute the word "Jesus" for the logos.

Thanks! Sorry for being slow to understand. Still trying to understand this Plan. We know that the word Plan is a noun, and a noun is one of three possibilities—a person, a place or a thing. Are you saying the Plan of which John writes is not the Person of the Son of God, but is instead a thing, which is an idea God the Father has?

 

[Muffled]

1 Cor 8:5-6,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

It is important to let the scriptures speak for themselves, without interjecting our own ideas.

While many believe there is only one god, verse 5 clearly says there are many Gods. If we read the scriptures thinking there is only one god, we will not get the true picture. I must emphasize that I am not the one saying there are many gods.

In light of verse 6, how can you possibly say that God the Son (words not actually found in the scriptures) is God? What is it about the words, "to us there is but one God, the Father" that you don't believe?

We must change our believing to fit with the scriptures. If the scriptures say that the one God is the Father, then we must rid ourselves of any thoughts that say otherwise.

There are several other verses that speak of other gods besides Yahweh. Let me know if you are interested in seeing them.

I believe there are many gods but only one God (Jehovah, Jesus). The fact that Paul refers to the Father as God does not eliminate the fact that the other members of the Trinity are God also.

 

[Muffled]

My stupid analogy: The Son of God is to the human Jesus as the Internet is to a laptop. Just as a laptop cannot possibly hold all of the information available from the Internet, so too the human brain of Jesus couldn’t possibly hold all of the information known by the Son of God. Hence, no contradiction in Jesus saying he — “the son of man” — didn’t know what he — the Son of God — did know.

I don't remember any such son of man/son of God statement.

I do believe that the human brain is capable of receiving information from the Spirit of God and even more so if that Spirit is resident.

 

[Muffled]

So the Son of Man is a different person that the Son of God? There are really two Jesus? That is as bad as 3 Gods. How about one Jesus referred to with two different titles? Wouldn't that make more sense?

I believe the two terms refer to the same person but have two different concepts. Jesus calls Himself son of man when no-one else bothers to do that. I believe that is because it is a special thing for God so that is why he emphasizes it.

I believe the son of God term refers to the fact that He is a son and also of God.

 

[Muffled]

Since God did not want to reveal the time, He said these words, to prevent others asking Him, or insisting on revealing it, or that the believes don't question why Jesus did not reveal the time of return explicitly in the Bible.

I believe your comment is out of context. Jesus is answering the question literally of when the earth will expire then goes on after that to answer the real question of when will the world end (as we know it). I believe in English we only have one word "know" for having intelligence and experiencing. I believe God will not be in human form (Jesus) when the earth expires millions of years from now.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

I don't remember any such son of man/son of God statement.

Do you mean you don’t recall having seen Jesus refer to himself as “the Son of Man” or as “the Son of God”?

I do believe that the human brain is capable of receiving information from the Spirit of God and even more so if that Spirit is resident.

Affirmative. Do you think God would determine what information the brain of Jesus would receive and so know, as his brain couldn’t possibly receive everything God knows?

 

[rrobs]

I believe there are many gods but only one God (Jehovah, Jesus). The fact that Paul refers to the Father as God does not eliminate the fact that the other members of the Trinity are God also.

No, no, no!

According to the trinity doctrine, Jesus is God the Son. Of course that term is foreign to the scriptures themselves, but even if there was a God the Son, he would not be God the Father. Read 1 Cor 8:6 again and see who is the one God. It's not God the Son (who doesn't even really exist in the scriptures).

It is purely your preconceived idea that led you to say "(Jehovah, Jesus)." There is no scriptural justification for such a declaration.

 

[rrobs]

I believe the two terms refer to the same person but have two different concepts. Jesus calls Himself son of man when no-one else bothers to do that. I believe that is because it is a special thing for God so that is why he emphasizes it.

I believe the son of God term refers to the fact that He is a son and also of God.

All born again believers are sons of men (our natural birth) and sons of God (our spiritual birth from above). If that makes Jesus God, then why doesn't it also make us God?

 

[rrobs]

Thanks! Sorry for being slow to understand. Still trying to understand this Plan. We know that the word Plan is a noun, and a noun is one of three possibilities—a person, a place or a thing. Are you saying the Plan of which John writes is not the Person of the Son of God, but is instead a thing, which is an idea God the Father has?

Precisely. You're not that slow.

The star of the plan at first was Adam. Of course Adam's light went out. But God was prepared for that possibility. That of course would be Jesus Christ. Jesus is called "the second Adam" in the scriptures. From Genesis 3:"15 onward the scriptures tell us all about the coming Messiah. Jesus said a few times that the OT is all about him. Whenever the scriptures say something like Jesus fulfilled the law, it means he followed the instructions, the logos, God gave him that were necessary to bring His plan, the logos, to a successful conclusion. I'd say he did a pretty good job! Never missed a beat!

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Precisely. Your not that slow.

The star of the plan at first was Adam. Of course Adam's light went out. But God was prepared for that possibility. That of course would be Jesus Christ. Jesus is called "the second Adam" in the scriptures. From Genesis 3:"15 onward the scriptures tell us all about the coming Messiah. Jesus said a few times that the OT is all about him. Whenever the scriptures say something like Jesus fulfilled the law, it means he followed the instructions, the logos, God gave him that were necessary to bring His plan, the logos, to a successful conclusion. I'd say he did a pretty good job! Never missed a beat!

Thanks! So, let’s see what we should infer so far:

In the beginning was the [plan], and the [plan] was with God, and the [plan] was God. (John 1:1)
​

Since the plan was a thing, and the plan was God, does that mean God is a thing?

 

[rrobs]

Thanks! So, let’s see what we should infer so far:

In the beginning was the [plan], and the [plan] was with God, and the [plan] was God. (John 1:1)
​

Since the plan was a thing, and the plan was God, does that mean God is a thing?

No. God is a very personal God. But the trinity doctrine calls God three persons in one essence, thus making God to be an essence, which is a thing. So while the scriptures describe God as a person, the trinity does reduce Him to a thing.

The last phrase in John 1:1, "and the logos was God," is not a good translation from the Greek. It has to do with the translation from the Greek to the English. It is a bit technical from a grammar perspective. Rather than reinventing he wheel, I'll just give you an explanation I found on the internet. It captures the meaning quite well.

"When we are trying to discover what GOD (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS) is referring to in a verse, the context is always the final arbiter. However, we do get some help in that it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when “GOD” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this. The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1, which has 2 occurrences of theos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the theos, and the Word was theos.” Since the definite article (“the”) is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God,”) the most natural meaning of the word would be that it referred to the quality of God, i.e., “divine,” “god-like,” or “like God.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it, “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt, who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase, “the logos was divine.”

A very clear explanation of how to translate theos without the definite article can be found in Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay, a professor at Trinity College in Glasgow:

In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.

An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.

[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was” (William Barclay, Jesus as They Saw Him, pp. 21 and 22)."

John 1:1, REV Bible and Commentary

 

[Sp0ckrates]

No. God is a very personal God. But the trinity doctrine calls God three persons in one essence, thus making God to be an essence, which is a thing. So while the scriptures describe God as a person, the trinity does reduce Him to a thing.

The last phrase in John 1:1, "and the logos was God," is not a good translation from the Greek. It has to do with the translation from the Greek to the English. It is a bit technical from a grammar perspective. Rather than reinventing he wheel, I'll just give you an explanation I found on the internet. It captures the meaning quite well.

"When we are trying to discover what GOD (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS) is referring to in a verse, the context is always the final arbiter. However, we do get some help in that it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when “GOD” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this. The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1, which has 2 occurrences of theos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the theos, and the Word was theos.” Since the definite article (“the”) is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God,”) the most natural meaning of the word would be that it referred to the quality of God, i.e., “divine,” “god-like,” or “like God.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it, “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt, who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase, “the logos was divine.”

A very clear explanation of how to translate theos without the definite article can be found in Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay, a professor at Trinity College in Glasgow:

In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.

An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.

[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was” (William Barclay, Jesus as They Saw Him, pp. 21 and 22)."

John 1:1, REV Bible and Commentary

Not sure that answered my question. I mean, let’s say we translate the sentence your way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the theos, and the Word was theos.
​

Let’s say we also use your preferred translation of the word Word:

In the beginning was the [plan], and the [plan] was with the theos, and the [plan] was theos.
​

Let’s also say theos should be translated as God (but let me know if you disagree). We arrive at this:

In the beginning was the [plan], and the [plan] was with the God, and the [plan] was God.
​

The question still remains: Is God a plan?

 

[rrobs]

Not sure that answered my question.

It probably didn't answer your question. The reason for that is that there is no way whatsoever that you could have absorbed that information in such a short time. In other words, you weren't like the Bereans, who didn't swallow everything Paul told them, but they did "search the scriptures daily" to see if what Paul them was true or not. You have not taken the time to do that. You immediately discounted the information without really digging into it. I'm not condemning you in any way shape or form. I'm just giving you the reason for not understanding my answer.

Let’s say we also use your preferred translation of the word Word:

In the beginning was the [plan], and the [plan] was with the theos, and the [plan] was theos.​

​

That is not my preferred translation. Not at all. Read my previous response again to see what the Greek text says.

The question still remains: Is God a plan?

No. Once again, I urge you to read my previous response with more care. It will go a long way to answering your question about the plan. Not everything, but a good start.

I admit that the large quote I referred to in the previous post is rather technical, one even might say, dry. However, most early Christians spoke Greek as their primary language. When John wrote, he was fully aware of his audience. He knew it wasn't a 21st century New Yorker. He wrote in the language they understood and they would almost certainly easily understood what John said.

While the ancient Greek grammar may seem obtuse to us, they were quite adept at their own language. The understood the significance of using a definite article or not without thinking about it. It might be complicated to us, but it was natural for them. They would have understood John 1:1 pretty much in the same way as the extended quote of my previous post shows.

Spend at least a few days of study before dismissing what I say. Try avoiding jumping to conclusions. You'll usually find whatever conclusion you are looking for if you already know what it is.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

It probably didn't answer your question. The reason for that is that there is no way whatsoever that you could have absorbed that information in such a short time. In other words, you weren't like the Bereans, who didn't swallow everything Paul told them, but they did "search the scriptures daily" to see if what Paul them was true or not. You have not taken the time to do that. You immediately discounted the information without really digging into it. I'm not condemning you in any way shape or form. I'm just giving you the reason for not understanding my answer.

​

That is not my preferred translation. Not at all. Read my previous response again to see what the Greek text says.

No. Once again, I urge you to read my previous response with more care. It will go a long way to answering your question about the plan. Not everything, but a good start.

I admit that the large quote I referred to in the previous post is rather technical, one even might say, dry. However, most early Christians spoke Greek as their primary language. When John wrote, he was fully aware of his audience. He knew it wasn't a 21st century New Yorker. He wrote in the language they understood and they would almost certainly easily understood what John said.

While the ancient Greek grammar may seem obtuse to us, they were quite adept at their own language. The understood the significance of using a definite article or not without thinking about it. It might be complicated to us, but it was natural for them. They would have understood John 1:1 pretty much in the same way as the extended quote of my previous post shows.

Spend at least a few days of study before dismissing what I say. Try avoiding jumping to conclusions. You'll usually find whatever conclusion you are looking for if you already know what it is.

Post 303:

So, the Greek word logos, which my Bible translates as Word, is more accurately translated as plan. That would mean that this statement of John’s from my Bible,

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

Actually means this:

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

Correct?

Post 304:

I over simplified to some degree, but that is much closer to what John was saying.

My friend, I’m still trying to understand what you meant when you said the word Word in John 1:1 should be translated as the word plan.

I mean, I appreciate the full course meal you’re preparing for me, but I’m just an infant when it comes to learning what you know! I need milk, not solid food: Please help me first understand the simple truth that the word plan should be used instead of the word Word. After I know that, we may move on to maters that require more spiritual maturity of me! Right?

 

[Duncan]

John 1:1

Hey spockrates hope you are doing well, allow me to give you my version on John 1:1. `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' My task is not to explain what this text actually means, but to demonstrate that it does not clearly present Jesus as God. The first point is that there is a difficulty in conceiving that the Word is with God on the one hand, and is God on the other.

The first clause states that there is a distinction between the Word and God (since the one is with the other), while the second states that they are one and the same. As it stands the sentence does not make sense. It does make sense, however, if we realize that the word theos in Greek used here is an equivalent of the Hebrew word Elohim. Now Elohim can mean God, gods, a god, judge, exalted one, and even angel. The first word refers to God, while the second to another entity.

The reference to another entity clearly shows the Word not to be the God with whom the Word is. Indeed some scholars point out that a better translation would be: `and the Word was a god'. This also appears to me to be somewhat forced. One of the other alternatives should probably be chosen.

The Christian claim depends on John 1:14, `The Word became flesh.' If this is taken to mean that the Almighty God became flesh, or became incarnate as a human being, this would entail a change in the essence of God, which is both logically and Scripturally unacceptable. Note that this text does not say that Jesus is God.

It is an interesting fact that the Qur'an calls Jesus the Word of God without any of its adherents suggesting that the expression `clearly' presents him as God. Surely referring to Jesus as the Word of God is coherent with Islamic belief and terminology, and does not imply deity.