Word was Real God?

[pohandes]

Muting thread now for the sake of my equilibrium.

Sorry sir. You are right. The word is the real God. Thank you for helping me.

 

[BT3241]

You can’t they have to have faith its up to the individual.

 

[Vico]

whatistrue:

Well, since that book starts with “In the beginning”, like Genesis does, I would think that is a strong clue

Beginning in Genesis is the beginning of creation. If something exists in the beginning of creation, it does not mean that it is god.

I mean what else was in existence in the beginning other than God?

You are right. if beginning means “eternity”, But we need a proof for this.

So the God it’s describing here is the Creator. Is that who you think the real God is?

This verse does not say “He made all things”, but says: “All things were made by him”. There is a possibility that: Word may be tool in creation. Let me, give you an example: When you illuminate a dark room with a light, you can say the dark room illuminated by a light, But it does not mean that the light is you.

This sounds like the demi-urge of some belief or philosophical systems. Emanationism is heresy (See Fourth Lateran and Vatican I councils.) Creatio ex nihilo is the Catholic dogmatic teaching.

 

[Maximian]

The opening chapter of genesis refers to the Trinity

• God created (Father)
• God said (Word)
• The Spirit was moving (Holy Ghost)

 

[pohandes]

This sounds like the demi-urge of some belief or philosophical systems. Emanationism is heresy (See Fourth Lateran and Vatican I councils.) Creatio ex nihilo is the Catholic dogmatic teaching.

No! I don’t support Emanationism!

The opening chapter of genesis refers to the Trinity

• God created (Father)
• God said (Word)
• The Spirit was moving (Holy Ghost)

This is not about Trinity.

Please come to my new thread: Does "in the beginning" mean Eternity?

 

[Gorgias]

This verse does not say “He made all things”, but says: “All things were made by him”.

Not sure how you’re reading it that way. Let’s look at it:

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.

“All [things] through him came-into-being, and without him came-into-being not-even one [thing] that has-come-into-being.”

Pretty cut and dried, wouldn’t you say? “Without him, not even one thing that exists has come into being.”

The Question is: Does it mean the real God?

I think that you actually need to make the case that it doesn’t, before you can blithely say “maybe it isn’t the real God”, don’t you think?

No. I am not sure that Logos is the God.

Still, I’m not buying the distinction you’re attempting to make:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος,

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,

καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

He’s asserting the eternal existence of the Second Person of the Trinity – the Logos. He was there always, and was with God always, and was God always.

There’s no other “god” here, and the evangelist is asserting the Logos’ shared identity with God.

Incarnation is becoming the Flesh! What is the difference

The difference is that He didn’t stop being God and merely transformed into a creature.

 

[pohandes]

Not sure how you’re reading it that way. Let’s look at it:

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.

“All [things] through him came-into-being, and without him came-into-being not-even one [thing] that has-come-into-being.”

Pretty cut and dried, wouldn’t you say? “Without him, not even one thing that exists has come into being.”

I don’t think so. according to firs part of this verse, we understand role of the word in the creation:

1.All [things] through him came-into-being

2,without him came-into-being not-even one [thing] that has-come-into-being.

Without him, other things has no thing to come into being through him.

In my example: Light is not you, but you can say the dark, stay dark without the light.

I think that you actually need to make the case that it doesn’t , before you can blithely say “maybe it isn’t the real God”, don’t you think?

I am just talking about a doubt.

Still, I’m not buying the distinction you’re attempting to make:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος,

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,

καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

He’s asserting the eternal existence of the Second Person of the Trinity – the Logos. He was there always, and was with God always, and was God always.

There’s no other “god” here, and the evangelist is asserting the Logos’ shared identity with God.

As I said, in the bible none god beings called God. How we can sure word is real God, when it called God?

The difference is that He didn’t stop being God and merely transformed into a creature.

And the problem is God never changes and never become a creature.

 

[Gorgias]

In my example: Light is not you, but you can say the dark, stay dark without the light.

Yeah… I’m not seeing how that relates.

I am just talking about a doubt.

OK. On what basis is that doubt founded?

in the bible non-god beings called God. we can sure word is real God, when it called God?

Except that, when you read the translations, they make it clear: only God is called “God”, while these other idols are referred to as “gods”.

And the problem is God never changes and never become a creature.

Well… hold on, though. The Second Person of God became incarnate – He is fully human! (And fully devine.)

 

[pohandes]

Yeah… I’m not seeing how that relates.

Why? It is clear.

OK. On what basis is that doubt founded?

On John1:14

Except that, when you read the translations, they make it clear: only God is called “God”, while these other idols are referred to as “gods”.

Yes. But Translators do it according to their belief.

Well… hold on, though. The Second Person of God became incarnate – He is fully human! (And fully devine.)

What do you mean fully? If He is fully devine, He can’t have humanity.

 

[Gorgias]

Why? It is clear.

To you, maybe…

pohandes:

OK. On what basis is that doubt founded?

On John1:14

The “and the Word became flesh” part?

Keep reading the verse: “we beheld his glory, the glory as of an only-begotten from the Father.” The ‘Father’ here is God. Jesus is His Son.

pohandes:

Yes. But Translators do it according to their belief.

Yes, but the Church accepts (or rejects) the translations based on its authority to teach.

pohandes:

What do you mean fully? If He is fully devine, He can’t have humanity.

This is one of the fundamental Christological teachings of the Church.

There’s an interesting dynamic surrounding the Church. Because it’s been in existence for 2000 years, and its basic teachings are well-established today, we can lose sight of the fact that they weren’t always well-established. This was one of the first major theological crises in the Church – the answer to the question “who is Jesus, anyway?”. There were many answers – some claimed He wasn’t “real”, but was some sort of mere ‘appearance’ (kind of like a ghost or a hologram). Others claimed He was real, but He wasn’t really God – they thought Jesus was the first creature created by God. Still others thought that Jesus was just one aspect (out of three) that God appears in.

In the final analysis, the Church concluded (at the Council of Chalcedon) that Jesus is one person with two natures. The technical term for this is the hypostatic union. Jesus is one person, with a fully human nature and a fully divine nature.

 

[pohandes]

To you , maybe…

Yes. To me. We are discussing about my Question

The “and the Word became flesh” part?

Keep reading the verse: “we beheld his glory, the glory as of an only-begotten from the Father.” The ‘Father’ here is God. Jesus is His Son.

The prblem is: God never changes and a self-exist never become a creature.

Yes, but the Church accepts (or rejects) the translations based on its authority to teach.

It makes no difference

This is one of the fundamental Christological teachings of the Church.

I know about this teaching, and I asked my question. about it

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. To me. We are discussing about my Question

Perhaps you might explain what’s obvious to you, but not others.

God never changes and a self-exist never become a creature.

OK. So, you have a problem with the Incarnation. Got it. So… do you discount what Jesus says in the Gospels, then?

It makes no difference

Oh, I disagree! It makes all the difference in the world! The Church has spoken out many times, to defend the Scriptures against inaccurate translations!

I know about this teaching, and I asked my question. about it

OK. So… if you followed the link, then you know what the language of the teaching is. Is your question simply “how can this be so?”…?

 

[pohandes]

OK. So, you have a problem with the Incarnation. Got it. So… do you discount what Jesus says in the Gospels, then?

No

Oh, I disagree! It makes all the difference in the world! The Church has spoken out many times, to defend the Scriptures against inaccurate translations!

What is the true translation?

OK. So… if you followed the link, then you know what the language of the teaching is. Is your question simply “how can this be so?”…?

Yes. But not here. In other Thread.

 

[Gorgias]

What is the true translation?

Look to the RSV-CE or NAB, would be my advice.