John 1:1- Pros meaning of Relationship

[civic]

NT:4314
89.112 NT:4314† ‎pros: a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships - 'with, before.' ‎ei)rh/nhn e&xomen pro\$ to\n qeo/n ‎'we have peace with God' Rom 5:1; ‎kai\ o( lo/go$ h@n pro\$ to\n qeo/n ‎'the Word was with God' John 1:1; ‎parrhsi/an e&xomen pro\$ to\n qeo/n ‎'we have confidence before God' 1 John 3:21.

Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies- Louw and Nida Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament

The Word is also seen has having eternally coexisted with a specific person called God (Greek, ton theon- the God, with the definite article implying that John has a specific person in mind). The term pros implies that not only is there a distinction between the Word and God, but that the Word is also personal. The Word is not just an impersonal attribute existing in the mind of God, but is a distinct person who has coexisted with God from eternity:

"John's use of the preposition pros 'with' is significant. It implies that the Father and the Son had an intimate as well as eternal relationship. Lenski explains:

The preposition pros, as distinct from heos, para, and sun, is of the greatest importance... The idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an attribute inferring in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God and God turned equally toward him. He was another and yet not other than God.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

The above coincides perfectly with John 17:5 where we read Jesus saying He was with ( para ) in relationship together, alongside the Father sharing the same Glory that is Gods alone before the Creation.

Strong's Concordance
para: from beside, by the side of, by, beside
Original Word: παρά
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: para
Phonetic Spelling: (par-ah')
Definition: from beside, by the side of, by, beside
Usage: gen: from; dat: beside, in the presence of; acc: alongside of.

Thayers Greek Lexicon
para- with the genitive; and as in Greek prose writings always with the genitive of a person, to denote that a thing proceeds from. the side or the vicinity of one, or from one's sphere of power, or from one's wealth or store, Latina, ab; German von ... her, von neben; Frenchde chez; (English from beside, from);

b. with, i. e. in one's house; in one's town; in one's society: ξενίζεσθαι (which see), Acts 10:6; Acts 21:16; μένειν, of guests or lodgers, John 1:39 (); ; Acts 9:43; Acts 18:3, 20 (R G); f; ἐπιμένειν, Acts 28:14 L T Tr WH; καταλύειν, Luke 19:7 (Demosthenes, de corona § 82 (cf. Buttmann, 339 (292))); ἀριστᾶν, Luke 11:37; ἀπολείπειν τί, 2 Timothy 4:13; παρά τῷ Θεῷ, dwelling with God, John 8:38; equivalent to in heaven, John 17:5; μισθόν ἔχειν, to have a reward laid up with God in heaven, Matthew 6:1; εὑρεῖν χάριν (there where God is, i. e. God's favor (cf. Winer's Grammar, 365 (343))), Luke 1:30; a person is also said to have χάρις παρά one with whom he is acceptable, Luke 2:52; τοῦτο χάρις παρά Θεῷ, this is acceptable with God, pleasing to him, 1 Peter 2:20 (for בְּעֵינֵי, Exodus 33:12, 16; Numbers 11:15); παρά Θεῷ, in fellowship with God (of those who have embraced the Christian religion and turned to God from whom they had before been estranged), 1 Corinthians 7:24; παρά κυρίῳ (in heaven), before the Lord as judge, 2 Peter 2:11 (G L omit and Tr WH brackets the phrase); παῥ ὑμῖν, in your city, in your church, Colossians 4:16; with a dative plural equivalent to among, Matthew 22:25; Matthew 28:15; Revelation 2:13; παῥ ἑαυτῷ, at his home, 1 Corinthians 16:2.

 

[APAK]

John 1:1b – ‘and the word was with God’

The Greek transliterated word ‘prós’ means ‘toward’ ‘facing’ or ‘pertaining or applied to’ or ‘of’ of ‘from,’ and not in this context ‘with.’ or ‘beside.’ More precisely then, 1:1b should be translated with meaning as ‘and this word came from God’ or ‘and this word applied only to God.’ ‘The ‘prós’ word connotes within or part of himself and not on the outside of himself.

Further, the word 'of' (with, used a last resort) God expresses his desires, and expressions as his affirmation of being alive and reason d'etre through his spirit, constantly.

My humble take on the Greek symbol πρός and transliterated as 'prós' as applied in John 1:1b

 

[Fred]

pros

New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): In itself Jn. 1:1a ("in the beginning the word already existed") speaks only of the pre-temporaility or supra-temporality of the Logos, but by his conjunction of en archē and en John clearly implies the eternal pre-existence of the Word whose true sphere was not time but eternity (3:1204, Appendix - pros, M. J. Harris)

 

[civic]

John 1:1b – ‘and the word was with God’

The Greek transliterated word ‘prós’ means ‘toward’ ‘facing’ or ‘pertaining or applied to’ or ‘of’ of ‘from,’ and not in this context ‘with.’ or ‘beside.’ More precisely then, 1:1b should be translated with meaning as ‘and this word came from God’ or ‘and this word applied only to God.’ ‘The ‘prós’ word connotes within or part of himself and not on the outside of himself.

Further, the word 'of' (with, used a last resort) God expresses his desires, and expressions as his affirmation of being alive and reason d'etre through his spirit, constantly.

My humble take on the Greek symbol πρός and transliterated as 'prós' as applied in John 1:1b

It would be nice to have a source supporting your premise such as a Greek Lexicon that cites your position from the text in John 1:1

Can you provide one ?

Thanks !

 

[APAK]

It would be nice to have a source supporting your premise such as a Greek Lexicon that cites your position from the text in John 1:1

Can you provide one ?

Thanks !

I do not have (a) ready lexicon(s)/dictionary(ies) for my post civic, although I could unpack my post and work backwards to show which lexicons or other sources I derived my conclusions from...

These lexicons are not necessarily a reliable source of fact anyway. Many, especially today are already biased by their authors and views. One has to be careful or cautious in applying what is written in them as part of your argument or conclusions.

And besides that, lexicons really cannot become a stable source of truth for a specific example such as this subject.

I know you reply of them a lot as I observe, and I do not, as they tend to explain and provide generic simplistic answers. It is an accurate generic tool at best.

You must know this already as you use them (lexicons/dictionaries) even here, that most of the text you provide, its length or volume of text you display is mostly irrelevant and difficult to find the text that truly applies, or it's missing completely. One still has to choose which options or answers it provides to the subject at hand. Therefore, it really becomes a subjective game at times. And if you have a bias, you will go with that lexicon answer that suits your needs and you choose it as a proof to your argument. And the truth is still far away. By writing out your argument and associating it with a source or support such as a lexicon you provide is not real proof. You have to then go to the next step and explain and speak/write about the support and subject, together and how it all fits etc. You still have to persuade your argument as being plausible and as a viable option or as the only viable option.

Folks do the same with scripture verses and use them like a type of lexicon. It does not necessarily point to the truth, and it usually does not. They need to apply both parts, in context, of reaching the objective and proof.

BL needs more effort and work that many cannot do, or won't do.

I generated my post from years of research and also using some lexicons and dictionaries as aids although not as my sole basis, and from other commentaries etc. and the Bible itself of course.

In fact this is how I usually form my opinions on theological subjects. Not to also forget the Spirit's guidance that I truly depend upon most of the time..

Thanks for asking..

 

[civic]

I do not have (a) ready lexicon(s)/dictionary(ies) for my post civic, although I could unpack my post and work backwards to show which lexicons or other sources I derived my conclusions from...

These lexicons are not necessarily a reliable source of fact anyway. Many, especially today are already biased by their authors and views. One has to be careful or cautious in applying what is written in them as part of your argument or conclusions.

And besides that, lexicons really cannot become a stable source of truth for a specific example such as this subject.

I know you reply of them a lot as I observe, and I do not, as they tend to explain and provide generic simplistic answers. It is an accurate generic tool at best.

You must know this already as you use them (lexicons/dictionaries) even here, that most of the text you provide, its length or volume of text you display is mostly irrelevant and difficult to find the text that truly applies, or it's missing completely. One still has to choose which options or answers it provides to the subject at hand. Therefore, it really becomes a subjective game at times. And if you have a bias, you will go with that lexicon answer that suits your needs and you choose it as a proof to your argument. And the truth is still far away. By writing out your argument and associating it with a source or support such as a lexicon you provide is not real proof. You have to then go to the next step and explain and speak/write about the support and subject, together and how it all fits etc. You still have to persuade your argument as being plausible and as a viable option or as the only viable option.

Folks do the same with scripture verses and use them like a type of lexicon. It does not necessarily point to the truth, and it usually does not. They need to apply both parts, in context, of reaching the objective and proof.

BL needs more effort and work that many cannot do, or won't do.

I generated my post from years of research and also using some lexicons and dictionaries as aids although not as my sole basis, and from other commentaries etc. and the Bible itself of course.

In fact this is how I usually form my opinions on theological subjects. Not to also forget the Spirit's guidance that I truly depend upon most of the time..

Thanks for asking..

I appreciate your honest answer my friend.