John 1:1 Discussion

[firedragon]

Jesus, is God in human form after he emptied HIMSELF. Christ is the visible manifestation of an invisible GOD. It is interesting to note that Jesus said that until he returned to heaven, the Holy Spirit would not be able to come down to indwell believers.

See John 16:7-16

It does not say holy spirit.

 

[rusra02]

Directly from the original:

Εν αρχή ήτο ο Λόγος, και ο Λόγος ήτο παρά τω Θεώ, και Θεός ήτο ο Λόγος.​

Which translates to:

“In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was towards God, and God was the Word”​

Directly from the original:

Αυτός ήταν στην αρχή προς τον Θεό​

Which translates to:

“This one was in the beginning towards God”​

1) Jesus is not the Word. He is nothing other than just a man. The Christ is the Word. And, yes, there is a huge difference.

2) The Word comes from God and is God. Read 1:1 again.



Directly from the original:

Κανένας δεν είδε ποτέ τον Θεό· ο Μονογενής Υιός, που είναι στην αγκαλιά τού Πατέρα, εκείνος τον φανέρωσε.​

Which translates to:

“No one has seen God ever; the only-begotten son, who is in the Father’s embrace, is the one who has revealed Him”​

“Revealing” doesn’t necessarily mean showing something that is visible to the natural eye. Example: I’m revealing the truth now… is it possible for anyone to see it with his/her physical eyes? Nope.

And, again: Jesus is just a man. The Christ is the issue.

BTW, what do you -or anyone else- think that “the Word” is, anyway?

Bonus:

Και ο Λόγος έγινε σάρκα, και κατοίκησε ανάμεσά μας, (και είδαμε τη δόξα του, δόξαν ως μονογενή από τον Πατέρα), γεμάτος χάρη και αλήθεια. ​

That’s John 1:14, Which translates to:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw it’s glory, glory as only-begotten from the Father) filled with grace and truth”​

But, it’s much more interesting if you read the whole paragraph:

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

~~~

“No one has seen God ever." Like I said. As to John 1:1, I think this quote is enlightening: "The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho a·grosʹ] is the world [Greek, ho koʹsmos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.

What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”

To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho the·osʹ and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.” (w09 4/1)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Check out these versions of John 1:1….


▪ 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

▪ 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

▪ 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

▪ 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

▪ 1864: "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)

▪ 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)

▪ 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

▪ 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

▪ 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

▪ 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago

▪ 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

▪ 1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[15]

▪ 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958)

▪ 1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible

▪ 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible

▪ 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

▪ 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

▪ 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

Some use the term "divine." (1) Trinitarian Moffatt's highly acclaimed New Translation of the Bible and (2) trinitarian Smith-Goodspeed's An American Translation both say that the Word "was divine." The translations by (3) Boehmer, (4) Stage, and (5) Menge all say the Word was "of divine being." (6) John J. McKenzie, S. J., writes in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated `the word was with the God (equals the Father), and the word was a divine being.'" - p. 317, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1965, published with Catholic Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hey people,

Let's have a discussion on John 1:1, shall we? I know this verse(and lots others) is quoted to prove that Christ is God. Let's have a debate on those who believe that Christ is God and those who believe Christ is not God using John 1:1. You can use other verses as well but let's try to stick to John 1:1 as best we can. I know it's only decent if I break the ice first, but I'd like someone to do the head start instead.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

" John 1:1 "

The verse "John 1:1 " is not* from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, please. Right?
The followers of Yeshua must quote first , for a meaningful discussion/debate verse/verses from Yeshua where he had in a straightforward , unequivocal and unambiguous manner made a claim and given gist of reason, and then the discussion debate be made within the purview of such verses, not the vice a versa, please, right?
Else, there is every chance that one would be misled most certainly, please, right?

Regards
_______________
*Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible