NOGO

We have been told that in John 1:1 the Word is Jesus.
But is he?

Nowhere in the OT does it say that Jesus created all things as it says in John 1:3 of the Word.

Also there is these verses.

Revelation 1:2
who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus

Revelation 20:4
Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.


Note that in each case the word of God is not equated to Jesus. There are two distinguishable things [1] the word of God and [2] the testimony of Jesus Christ. If Jesus was the Word then no one would talk about the word of God and the testimony of the Word.

I suspect that all capitalization here is irrelevant.

I would like to know if there is any scholarly work done which has Jesus and the Word as two separate beings or is this heresy?

MortalWombat

The Word (Logos) is a pre-christian concept in Stoic and Platonic Greek philosophy. The Stoics thought of the Logos as the mind of God or the reasoning, governing principle behind nature. The Platonists adopted the Logos as the link between God and the lower world of humanity. The concept was also adopted by some Hellenistic Jews, such as Philo of Alexandria and others. This is probably how the Logos or Word became associated with Jesus, that is, through Hellenistic Judaism.

NOGO

Mortal

Can you recommend some readings.

Thanks for the feedback.

NOGO

catman

Aren't you getting the father and the son mixed up? We are tqalking here about chapter one aren't we? You know--the son of god as was born from the womb of Mary after an approx nine moths of pregnancy--and no labor to speak of?

Evangelion

Good call, NOGO.

MortalWombat is correct. The conception of the logos as a literal being, began with Philo of Alexandria, and was later dragged into Christianity by the Hellenic theologian-philosophers, such as Justin Martyr (who also borrowed heavily from Numenius), Tertullian, and Origen.

Evangelion

NOGO - you asked for some readings. I would recommend Marian Hillar's Numenius and Greek Sources of Justin's Theology, which you can ready by clicking <a href="http://www.socinian.org/Numenius2.html" target="_blank">here.</a>

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

Evangelion

NOGO - a few more thoughts.

Yep, the Trinitarians and JWs will say this.

Nope.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Yep, pretty much.

It's "heresy" to Trinitarians, yes. Besides, there's no need to see the logos as a literal person at all. Doesn't even make any sense.

NOGO

Well there is.

Revelation 19:13
He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

John 1:32
John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.

Thanks for the feedback.

NOGO

Yes, if you read Luke and Matthew.
Not, if you read John.

John 1:33:34
"I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' "I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."

John the Baptist therefore recognized Jesus as the Son of God after he had seen the Spirit of God descended upon him and not before (see bold text). In fact it is not at all clear if, in verse 34, John the Baptist is talking about Jesus or the Spirit of God which came down on him.

Evangelion

NOGO -

The reference is titular, not ongological.

"The Word of God" is one of Jesus' eschatological titles (like "Son of Man" and "King of Kings"); it is not a description of what he actually is.