John 1:1 according to the Messianic Faith

[Hoshiyya]

If the Son is "the Light" of Genesis 1:3 then how can the Light have been created through him?
.
.

It wasn't.

"Through" should also just be understood to mean "with his input", I think.
This also means he could give input on things created prior to himself.

Maybe sometimes God created something and Yeshua just had nothing to add. And anything Yeshua created would be ultimately creditable to God anyway, as God gave Yeshua the gift of creativity.

 

[daq]

It wasn't.

"Through" should also just be understood to mean "with his input", I think.
This also means he could give input on things created prior to himself.

Maybe sometimes God created something and Yehsua just had nothing to add. And anything Yeshua created would be ultimately creditable to God anyway, as God gave Yeshua the gift of creativity.

Through is generally dia which is the channel of an action, (like a vessel, utensil, tool, water channel, and so on). That is to say, not the source of a power but the channel through which the Power source flows. Paul uses it much concerning Messiah.
.
.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Through is generally dia which is the channel of an action, (like a vessel, utensil, tool, water channel, and so on). That is to say, not the source of a power but the channel through which the Power source flows. Paul uses it much concerning Messiah.
.
.

Yeshua is certainly not the source of God's power.

Look, I think we both agree that "through" is a word-choice that hints at the mystical. I outlined the role I think Yeshua played in the creation as regards his concrete involvement, on a non-mystical level. As regards the mystical, it ultimately cannot be put into words, so why challenge me to verbalize mystical things ?

I also mentioned that Yeshua can affect things created prior to himself. The heavens began to be created before the light, but their creation was not finalized until the seventh day, as is the case for all things. And indeed, no single part of the creation is yet finalized, one might say. Even Yeshua is "incomplete" in the sense that he has yet to begin to actively reign as the king he was made to be.

Yeshua has a part in all things, and whatever he does not currently have a part in, he will eventually. An atheist neighbor or a Muslim from work might turn to Yeshua tomorrow, and thus Yeshua would have a part in him in a way he did not previously.

 

[daq]

Yeshua is certainly not the source of God's power.

Look, I think we both agree that "through" is a word-choice that hints at the mystical. I outlined the role I think Yeshua played in the creation as regards his concrete involvement, on a non-mystical level. As regards the mystical, it ultimately cannot be put into words, so why challenge me to verbalize mystical things ?

I also mentioned that Yeshua can affect things created prior to himself. The heavens began to be created before the light, but their creation was not finalized until the seventh day, as is the case for all things. And indeed, no single part of the creation is yet finalized, one might say. Even Yeshua is "incomplete" in the sense that he has yet to begin to actively reign as the king he was made to be.

Yeshua has a part in all things, and whatever he does not currently have a part in, he will eventually. An atheist neighbor or a Muslim from work might turn to Yeshua tomorrow, and thus Yeshua would have a part in him in a way he did not previously.

I actually did not consider myself to be "challenging" you on anything. I said something to Gadar Perets and you asked me about it. The point I was trying to make is how can the Light create the Light? So what I said regarding what Gadar Perets quoted stands true: if all things were created through Messiah then he cannot be the Light of Genesis 1:3 because that would mean that the Light was created with the Light, (which did not yet exist before Elohim said, "Let there be Light"). That is not "mystical" but rather logical, common sense, and practical thinking. In addition we have the fact that before Elohim says anything we are informed that Ruach Elohim is fluttering or brooding over the waters, (perhaps like a Dove).
.
.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I actually did not consider myself to be "challenging" you on anything. I said something to Gadar Perets and you asked me about it. The point I was trying to make is how can the Light create the Light? So what I said regarding what Gadar Perets quoted stands true: if all things were created through Messiah then he cannot be the Light of Genesis 1:3 because that would mean that the Light was created with the Light, (which did not yet exist before Elohim said, "Let there be Light"). That is not "mystical" but rather logical, common sense, and practical thinking. In addition we have the fact that before Elohim says anything we are informed that Ruach Elohim is fluttering or brooding over the waters, (perhaps like a Dove).
.
.

We are talking about two different things. "Through" and "all".

Through is mystical. All is a relative term.

When scripture says "all", it seldom means all. Making all into a literal term is the easiest way to make scripture contradict itself.

When scripture says something was created "through" Yeshua, that is obviously mystical. How were hippos created through Yeshua? It cannot be put into words without degrading the meaning.

 

[daq]

We are talking about two different things. "Through" and "all".

Through is mystical. All is a relative term.

When scripture says "all", it seldom means all. Making all into a literal term is the easiest way to make scripture contradict itself.

When scripture says something was created "through" Yeshua, that is obviously mystical. How were hippos created through Yeshua? It cannot be put into words without degrading the meaning.

I never said "Yeshua" but rather "Messiah" and neither is that mystical but rather overtly technical on my part, (see the previous page of this thread).
.
.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I never said "Yeshua" but rather "Messiah" and neither is that mystical but rather overtly technical on my part, (see the previous page of this thread).
.
.

"All" is not mystical. As for "through", that is obviously mystical.

Yeshua is the Messiah, so your specification that you were talking about the Messiah, and not Yeshua, is probably a trap meant to make me say something like: I'm sad you don't see Yeshua as the Messiah. Sigh.

 

[daq]

"All" is not mystical. As for "through", that is obviously mystical.

Yeshua is the Messiah, so your specification that you were talking about the Messiah, and not Yeshua, is probably a trap meant to make me say something like: I'm sad you don't see Yeshua as the Messiah.

No friend, it is not a trap, I explained my reasoning on the previous pages of this thread, (the Dove).
.
.

 

[gadar perets]

We are talking about two different things. "Through" and "all".

Through is mystical. All is a relative term.

When scripture says "all", it seldom means all. Making all into a literal term is the easiest way to make scripture contradict itself.

When scripture says something was created "through" Yeshua, that is obviously mystical. How were hippos created through Yeshua? It cannot be put into words without degrading the meaning.

I agree with "all" being a relative term, but not when it is combined with, "and without [the logos] not anything was made that was made." That makes it clear it is a finite term. The logos created everything including Angels, heaven, earth, water, light, animals, etc. The Son had No part in creation except that it was made through him. See next post about through.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I agree with "all" being a relative term, but not when it is combined with, "and without [the logos] not anything was made that was made." That makes it clear it is a finite term. The logos created everything including Angels, heaven, earth, water, light, animals, etc. The Son had No part in creation except that it was made through him. See next post about through.

I addressed these concerns. All things are currently still being fashioned, including Yeshua himself, and like the leaven mentioned in his proverbs, he works his way through the dough, until all the dough is leavened. Still I think it refers to creatures, not dead earth.

In his parable, the Creator is the woman, Yeshua is the leaven and the world is the dough (Matthew 13:33).

If I could have it my way, maybe I would have Yeshua be created before anything, before there was any time and space for him to experience or move in, if such an existence is even possible. But I have to abide by scripture, not by preferences.

 

[gadar perets]

We are told YHWH made all things all by Himself (Isa 44:24) by speaking things into existence (Psalm 33:6) "through" His Son. How? By telling the Son what to create? No. The Son was in the Father's plan before anything was created. He was the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world." In order to bring that plan to fruition, everything needed to be created to make it work. An earth was created for the Son to live on. People were created to die for and to put the Son to death. Trees were created to hang him on. Metal was created to make nails for his hands and feet. Air, food, water and all necessities were created to insure the plan continued so all the "actors" could fulfill their roles. Stones were created to build an altar and temple to fulfill various types and shadows. . .This was all done through the Son or with the Son in mind.

 

[Hoshiyya]

We are told YHWH made all things all by Himself (Isa 44:24) by speaking things into existence (Psalm 33:6) "through" His Son. How? By telling the Son what to create? No. The Son was in the Father's plan before anything was created. He was the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world." In order to bring that plan to fruition, everything needed to be created to make it work. An earth was created for the Son to live on. People were created to die for and to put the Son to death. Trees were created to hang him on. Metal was created to make nails for his hands and feet. Air, food, water and all necessities were created to insure the plan continued so all the "actors" could fulfill their roles. Stones were created to build an altar and temple to fulfill various types and shadows. . .This was all done through the Son or with the Son in mind.

If "through the Son" simply means "with the son in mind" then I don't see what we are arguing about. Like, do you expect me to deny God's omniscience?

It seems however your argument would require that all things played into his earthly life. Kangaroos would not need to be created, per your view. This is just one of the millions of superfluous creations, if your view is true. But that is not an argument/debate I care to pursue.

 

[gadar perets]

I wrote;
I agree with "all" being a relative term, but not when it is combined with, "and without [the logos] not anything was made that was made." That makes it clear it is a finite term. The logos created everything including Angels, heaven, earth, water, light, animals, etc. The Son had No part in creation except that it was made through him.

I addressed these concerns.

If you are saying the logos was not created until light was created, then you are excluding angels, heaven, earth, and water from "not anything was made that was made" and "all".

 

[gadar perets]

It seems however your argument would require that all things played into his earthly life. Kangaroos would not need to be created, per your view. This is just one of the millions of superfluous creations, if your view is true. But that is not an argument/debate I care to pursue.

There are no superfluous creations. All things are intrinsically tied together in ways that we cannot imagine. They may not have directly played into his life, but they played into the overall tapestry of life.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I wrote;
I agree with "all" being a relative term, but not when it is combined with, "and without [the logos] not anything was made that was made." That makes it clear it is a finite term. The logos created everything including Angels, heaven, earth, water, light, animals, etc. The Son had No part in creation except that it was made through him.

If you are saying the logos was not created until light was created, then you are excluding angels, heaven, earth, and water from "not anything was made that was made" and "all".

If you read my post maybe you will find the answer to your question. You just quoted one sentence, and posted it. The answer to your question follows that one sentence you quoted.

Seriously, there's a lot of meaty content I gave you, and you clearly did not contemplate it, rather you just quoted one sentence and asked me to repeat myself.

 

[Hoshiyya]

There are no superfluous creations. All things are intrinsically tied together in ways that we cannot imagine. They may not have directly played into his life, but they played into the overall tapestry of life.

Yes, maybe a Roman soldier one time met a guy who knew a guy who was related to a guy who once wore kangaroo-skin sandals, and without that soldier Christ would not have been crucified.

That could well be true, but that is not what scripture is talking about...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I do not believe Yeshua is the logos of John 1:1. For me to believe that, I would need to read him into the text. I DO believe Yeshua bears the name “the Logos of Elohim” (Rev 19:13), but only after the logos was made flesh. Prior to that, the logos was the Father's spoken words and thoughts.

The translators of John 1:1-4 assumed the “logos” was the Son and used “he” and “him” to translate the pronouns “outos” and “autos”. They were reading the Son into the text.Translators prior to the KJV did NOT read the Son into the text when they used "it" instead of "him" or "he".

To be true, your statement should read, "YHWH spoke and Yeshua was created." The Father spoke His Son into existence as a flesh and blood man. Yeshua was not a spirit being who was somehow miniaturized and put in Miriam's womb. YHWH spoke the necessary words to cause Miriam's egg to be fertilized with the correct DNA to create a male child.

I disagree. The Greek Orthodox have been using original texts and their translations for close to 2000 years and their understanding is within the context of the passages I gave. The Word is Yeshua.

 

[gadar perets]

I disagree. The Greek Orthodox have been using original texts and their translations for close to 2000 years and their understanding is within the context of the passages I gave. The Word is Yeshua.

Do you mean the same Greek Orthodox's who venerate Mary and keeps the Sabbath on Sunday? Sorry, but their beliefs are not convincing.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Do you mean the same Greek Orthodox's who venerate Mary and keeps the Sabbath on Sunday? Sorry, but their beliefs are not convincing.

Nothing wrong with veneration of Saints and the Orthodox never changed the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday (the day of resurrection). You have your facts wrong...

 

[yonah_mishael]

Thank you for asking. I translate straight from the Greek myself. The breve is an equivalent to the nomina sacra used in the early Greek Papyri to indicate divine names and titles, like spelling God G-d without the vowel = Elohim.

Since a nomina sacra stands were THEOS would ordinarily be in Greek, the indication of the early Papyri is that Elohim אלהים is to be understood. Elohim is an intensitive plural in Hebrew based on the noun Eloah meaning powerful one with a connotation of deity. The plural makes the word superlative, "most" or "all" hence Almighty. That is as exact as you can get in English for the meaning of Elohim. The breve is simply to indicate which words are marked in the Greek text as nomina Sacra, i.e. as deity and also Hebrew/Aramaic titles or names for YHWH.

Have you seen the musical The Book of Mormon? There's an apt song in that musical: "You're making things up again, Arnold." There's enough truth there to make it credible to a lay person, but you're just making so many things up out of thin air.