What is the difference in the words "theos" used in the Greek text? Why was the same one not used?

-- JBC (jra@jra-architects.com), December 13, 1998

Answers

Response to John 1:1

Dear JBC,

Excellent question! And a very deep one. As you know, Christ here is called the "logos" who was *with* God (theos), and *was* God, and so immediately we see part of the mystery of the Trinity: that is, we see two of the different persons of it who are both different, but nevertheless one. We cannot fully understand the Trinity, but we can still talk about what's going on here in some ways. The first thing I might say is that the term "logos" was first used in a strictly philosophical way by Heraclitus around 600 B.C., when he used it to designate the divine reason or plan that coordinates the changing universe. In this way, it well suits John's purpose to call Christ that.

We might also consider however that in just everyday Ancient Greek, the word "logos" meant "speech, story, word, etc." Since Jesus' mission was to spead the word of God -- for God to take human form and come down and teach us with His own words in person -- the term is still more appropriate.

Hope this helps.
Yours in Christ,
Christopher B

-- Christopher B -- December 13, 1998.

---

Response to John 1:1

Chris,

Iwasn't refering to "logos." I was refering to 'Theos.' The word for "God" not the word for "word." Why is Theos different?

-- JBC (jra@jra-architects.com), December 14, 1998.

---

Response to John 1:1

Dear Jamey,
Ancient Greek is an inflected language, which means that the same word can have different endings in different grammatical contexts. The section of John 1:1 you're talking about goes something like this: "kai ho logos ane pros ton *theon* and *theos* ane ho logos." "Theon" and "theos" here mean exactly the same thing, as you'll be able to see if you pick up an introduction to Ancient Greek (Hanson and Quinn is considered the best by many). In the second occurence here, "theos" is in the nominative case, as the subject of the second little independent clause ("And *God* was the word.") I'm pretty rusty on what Greek I studied, but it looks like in the first occurence, "theon," the word "theon" is in the accusative because it is going with the pronoun "pros," which means "with God." At any rate, the two words mean the same thing, except that they have a different grammatical role, in the same way that "God" would still mean "God" whether or not it were the subject of a sentence "God is great," or the direct object of a senstence "I love God." Hope this helps. Yours in Christ, Christopher B

-- Christopher B -- December 14, 1998.

-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.com), November 28, 2003

Answers

Shalom Jamey and Chris,

We would like to address many of the topics you both brought up here, but we are coming rather late so each one will take some time. What we’d like to start with however is the question of Is.45.7; our Scripture defines this as follows:

“I for the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the L-rd do all these things.”

The word that is interpreted as “darkness” is Chashowch (Hebrew) and has the number 2816 in the Concordance and the word interpreted as “disaster” is “rah” is number 7451 which can mean “evil” but also can mean “calamity”, or even hasatan (the satan). So how can we know for certain which word to choose? The answer we believe is in the opposing word, which is familiar to most people even non-Jews that is He creates shalom or “peace”, “being whole”, “uninjured”, and “safe and sound”. And the opposite of being at “peace”, “being whole”, “safe and sound”, and or “uninjured” is “calamity”, not “evil” or hasatan. Therefore we believe by studying this word “rah” in context we can confirm the correct interpretation. It is for this reason we firmly agree with the Catechism in her interpretation that the L-rd G-d did not create “evil” though she might have pulled this from James: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by G-d’; for G-d cannot tempt with evil and He tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires. The desire when it is conceived give birth to sin; and sin when full grown brings death.” Jam.1.12-15

As for the topics on the Trinity and the origins of the universe these two topics intersect for it is at “The Beginning” that the Son was “begotten not made” and “all things” created. The study of these beginnings is called Kabbalah, but unfortunately not many are knowledgeable in this study especially in the Catholic faith. Also much of the modern Kabbalah is seen as occultic in nature. So this teaching is called “a mystery” and our Church asks her children to accept this on faith as she has. Yet we suspect we have seen a glimpse of the unraveling of this mystery through the Kabbalah and it is consistent with Church teachings from what we have perceived.

Shalom, C & C

-- C. Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), December 05, 2003.