• Welcome to White Horse Forums. We ask that you would please take a moment to introduce yourself in the New Members section. Tell us a bit about yourself and dive in!

When did the word of God become flesh - a part of his Son?

A

APAK

Guest
The divine word of God, of life I speak about is God's unique divine power with his Spirit, to express himself and to will all things into existence, to speak things into existence as in the times of Genesis.

(Joh 6:63) It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

It is his same divine word that spoke through angels and anointed men, the prophets. Inside the minds and human spirits of men like Abraham and Moses, in the service of their God.

In fact it's the same word of God that spoke through many men of his chosen people in the OT to guide them and to keep them safe. To create ways from his word for them to conquer their enemies as an example.

(Num 23:19) God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
(Num 23:20) Behold, I received a command to bless: he has blessed, and I cannot revoke it.

Number 23:20 is the same as what the Son of God, also the son of man felt and acted upon after receiving his Father's word.

It is the same divine word of John 1:1 that performed all the miracles, all the signs and wonders, the forgiving of sins, spoke the gospel to the people, all through Jesus the Christ his Son, the Son of God.

His Son could do nothing and never could do these things alone, without the word of God dwelling within him. The Son echoed the words and copied the thought pictures he received from his Father for any supernatural event to command into existence. The Father was the source of all supernatural activity. The Son himself could only speak as a man alone whenever he was not engaged in the divine word of his God, his Father. Besides, he was only a human man of course, chosen by his Father, as part of his plan for our salvation.

(Joh 5:19) So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.
(Joh 5:20) For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.
(Joh 5:21) For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

(Joh 8:27) They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about the Father.
(Joh 8:28) So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.
(Joh 8:29) And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.”

(Joh 12:49) For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.
(Joh 12:50) And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”


(Joh 14:10) Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
(Joh 14:11) Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

(Joh 1:14) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(Joh 1:15) (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
(Joh 1:16) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.

The Son's 'fulness' referred to here is the actual powerful word of his Father as his Spirit within him. The son absent of this word of his Father could never give us grace upon grace, because he never was God, his own Father, to give the word of power.

So what was inside the inspired mind of John when he penned these words as John 1:14?

When did he think the word of God became into the flesh of the Son of God? All the gospel reporter spoke of it implicitly, although John is more technical and more explicit in the matter.

(Joh 6:37) All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
(Joh 6:38) For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Did Jesus the Christ, the Son of God lie about doing his Father's will and never his own?

So I ask then, when did the word of God come into Jesus, as the Son of God?
 
Himself being the word of God, first tell me when you think it ever left him.
Thanks for the response.

I seriously doubt that 'the word of God,' and incidentally it is always of the Father, can ever be a person 1M1S, let alone the Son of God, of his Father. Do you know why this is so?

I can see why you cannot answer my question and divert to one of your own, because this is the only answer you have and have been taught to, at least unwittingly, grossly misapply the Greek transliteration of the term 'logos' attaching it to a person rather than a thing.

And if memory serves me right, a person who is confident as you are by your words, in saying the Son is 'the word' will 99 percent of time invariably also include verses John 1:1 and 14 to create circular logic that has no basis in truth. And that is all you have, because there are no other verses in scripture you can find to attach to them to also force fit into them. It makes for a poor foundation of truth I'm afraid.

I will gladly tell you why the 'logos' MUST be an 'it.' And then maybe this thread can get running again...
 
And if memory serves me right, a person who is confident as you are by your words, in saying the Son is 'the word' will 99 percent of time invariably also include verses John 1:1 and 14 to create circular logic that has no basis in truth. And that is all you have, because there are no other verses in scripture you can find to attach to them to also force fit into them.
In what way is that circular logic. It is a straightforward statement, with explaining and expounding in between the two verses.
Gen 1:1 and all the "let there be's", and Gen 1:1 is a parallel verse to John 1:1. John did this for the specific purpose of identifying Jesus as God.
Jph 1:3; John 1:10; 1 Cor 8:8; Col 1:16;Hb 1:2; Rev 22:13 Now put the beginning Gen 1 with the end Rev 22.
 
In what way is that circular logic. It is a straightforward statement, with explaining and expounding in between the two verses.
Gen 1:1 and all the "let there be's", and Gen 1:1 is a parallel verse to John 1:1. John did this for the specific purpose of identifying Jesus as God.
Jph 1:3; John 1:10; 1 Cor 8:8; Col 1:16;Hb 1:2; Rev 22:13 Now put the beginning Gen 1 with the end Rev 22.
Yes I do know about the parallel of Genesis in John's writing and it was deliberate Arial. John was writing to show the bigger picture and compare and contrast the old creation or genesis 1 by the word with the new creation or genesis 2 by the same word. And most glue to the old Genesis account and thought only and do not recognize the new creation in Christ, the 1st born of the new creature in his writings. In the old Genesis, God used his word alone and in the new Genesis he used his son as his instrument and agent, and it is the word indwelt in him to further his plan of salvific restoration in and through Christ. This is what John was truly painting here.

Here, let me attach a work in-progress view of this bigger picture for you Arial. It may aid is what I see in John's writing and I have not even addressed why the word must be an 'it' yet. I wish that my OP and my posts and this attachment may shed some light...even a glimmer...
 
Yes I do know about the parallel of Genesis in John's writing and it was deliberate Arial. John was writing to show the bigger picture and compare and contrast the old creation or genesis 1 by the word with the new creation or genesis 2 by the same word. And most glue to the old Genesis account and thought only and do not recognize the new creation in Christ, the 1st born of the new creature in his writings. In the old Genesis, God used his word alone and in the new Genesis he used his son as his instrument and agent, and it is the word indwelt in him to further his plan of salvific restoration in and through Christ. This is what John was truly painting here.

Here, let me attach a work in-progress view of this bigger picture for you Arial. It may aid is what I see in John's writing and I have not even addressed why the word must be an 'it' yet. I wish that my OP and my posts and this attachment may shed some light...even a glimmer...
That is also F.F. Bruce's Commentary: It is not by accident that the Gospel begins with the same phrase as the book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1, ‘In the beginning’ introduces the story of the old creation; here it introduces the story of the new creation. In both works of creation the agent is the Word of God. (F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, pp. 28 and 29).
 
John was writing to show the bigger picture and compare and contrast the old creation or genesis 1 by the word with the new creation or genesis 2 by the same word.
Genesis 1 & 2 are not separate creations. It is different perspectives, covering different things.
the new creation in Christ,
The new creation in Christ is persons, not creation, and it refers to them having been regenerated----not re created.
In the old Genesis, God used his word alone and in the new Genesis he used his son as his instrument and agent, and it is the word indwelt in him to further his plan of salvific restoration in and through Christ. This is what John was truly painting here.
There is no old Genesis and new Genesis. Where do you get that? What sect are you associated with? God never used His Son. His Son came willingly, in full agreement with the Father, to do the work necessary to redeem a people. He did this by giving His perfect righteousness in place of the sinners unrighteousness, paying the penalty for sin required by God's justice. In John 1, John is telling us who Jesus is and what He came to do. Period. It is quite clear. That is the picture painted.

The pdf you give is produced by who?
 
Thanks for the response.

I seriously doubt that 'the word of God,' and incidentally it is always of the Father, can ever be a person 1M1S, let alone the Son of God, of his Father. Do you know why this is so?

I can see why you cannot answer my question and divert to one of your own, because this is the only answer you have and have been taught to, at least unwittingly, grossly misapply the Greek transliteration of the term 'logos' attaching it to a person rather than a thing.

And if memory serves me right, a person who is confident as you are by your words, in saying the Son is 'the word' will 99 percent of time invariably also include verses John 1:1 and 14 to create circular logic that has no basis in truth. And that is all you have, because there are no other verses in scripture you can find to attach to them to also force fit into them. It makes for a poor foundation of truth I'm afraid.

I will gladly tell you why the 'logos' MUST be an 'it.' And then maybe this thread can get running again...
I ask the question so you could clarify your position.
If you'd been here any length of time you would know I believe the Son of God came forth from God when he said, "Let there be Light."
 
Genesis 1 & 2 are not separate creations. It is different perspectives, covering different things.

The new creation in Christ is persons, not creation, and it refers to them having been regenerated----not re created.

There is no old Genesis and new Genesis. Where do you get that? What sect are you associated with? God never used His Son. His Son came willingly, in full agreement with the Father, to do the work necessary to redeem a people. He did this by giving His perfect righteousness in place of the sinners unrighteousness, paying the penalty for sin required by God's justice. In John 1, John is telling us who Jesus is and what He came to do. Period. It is quite clear. That is the picture painted.

The pdf you give is produced by who?
I think you are not understanding at all, so sad. And your response completely demonstrates it. If you would understand that the logos is the inner expression of God, his own voice that created supernatural events and things and in people, then you would know that a person could never be called 'the logos.' Look up the meaning of logos as it is used over 300x in the NT alone. And never once does it means a person or a gender. The reason is because it cannot mean a person.

Trinitarians decided to focus of John's writing long ago to create a crack a distortion in the meaning of the term logos for religious purposes and not for truth. They thought they created a real beach-head and now use it as the touchstone for Trinitarianism - the holy grail. And its all made up out of thin air, no basis for it.

And if you understood 'the word' and its true meaning, you then would understand why I used the terms Genesis 1 and 2 for simplicity in understanding. To convey how 'the word' was used in creation before Christ and when he was born. And yes, the genesis 2 is all about believers.

And that is my home made chart I sent to you as a pdf file incidentally. I thought I already indicated that when I said it was a work in progress. And why would you be so concerned with it anyway as I believe you will not read it. I could be wrong, I hope. I hope you do not have a closed-mind either?

And then you say that God never used his son, really? You do have the NT handy I hope. Did you actually read my OP saying that the Son can do nothing without his Father, and that he did and is doing his Father's will. I have no more to say on this matter. It should be self-explanatory.

And why ramble on with the Cross, sin, redemption and its meaning. I did not catch why you would introduce this concept here. I agree with all this although not for this thread. There is an overlap however, in that the word of God dwelling in Christ enabled him to perform his mission to the Cross. He could not complete it without the Father' power of his word. I can get into that more later as it's important.

I guess next time I will have to answer my own question of the OP, as you seem not to understand it in the least, nor do you want to because you have the Trinity fixation.

Oh, I'm not into sects, institutions, religions, denominations etc. I'm a non-label and I'm happy with being officially non-descript. Although I may be a mix of 'Patience,' 'Meshak,' 'Matthais' and 'Shroom' and a few others.
 
I ask the question so you could clarify your position.
If you'd been here any length of time you would know I believe the Son of God came forth from God when he said, "Let there be Light."
I do not, sorry. If you want I can elaborate some time...I do appreciate you sharing this though...
 
That is also F.F. Bruce's Commentary: It is not by accident that the Gospel begins with the same phrase as the book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1, ‘In the beginning’ introduces the story of the old creation; here it introduces the story of the new creation. In both works of creation the agent is the Word of God. (F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, pp. 28 and 29).
Thank you Patience, and I did not know of it until now. Like minded people and in spirit also....I do like many of posts by the way
 
Back
Top