John 1:1

[Shermana]

You dont know that. I am confident that God would not let his name not be right for all of these years it has been accepted.

First off, there's no "J" in Hebrew. Never was. Second, we don't know the vowels for sure. Third, the "Vav" is more of a "Uah" (W) sound, like other letters that have had their original pronounciation likely corrupted like the Tav (originally likely a Th sound) and the "Shin" (originally likely just "Sin" and only ever S, not SH), it most likely never was spoken with a "V" in early Hebrew.

 

[sojourner]

First off, there's no "J" in Hebrew. Never was. Second, we don't know the vowels for sure. Third, the "Vav" is more of a "Uah" (W) sound, like other letters that have had their original pronounciation likely corrupted like the Tav (originally likely a Th sound) and the "Shin" (originally likely just "Sin" and only ever S, not SH), it most likely never was spoken with a "V" in early Hebrew.

In other words: "Yahweh."

 

[cataway]

with that same logic nether can you use the name Jesus

 

[kjw47]

First off, there's no "J" in Hebrew. Never was. Second, we don't know the vowels for sure. Third, the "Vav" is more of a "Uah" (W) sound, like other letters that have had their original pronounciation likely corrupted like the Tav (originally likely a Th sound) and the "Shin" (originally likely just "Sin" and only ever S, not SH), it most likely never was spoken with a "V" in early Hebrew.

Jehovah isnt hebrew--Yahweh is Hebrew--- if no j-- then why is Jerusalem correct--Joshua,Jerimiah,Job,etc,

 

[Shermana]

Jehovah isnt hebrew--Yahweh is Hebrew--- if no j-- then why is Jerusalem correct--Joshua,Jerimiah,Job,etc,

Are you implying that the Hebrew pronounces all those names with a "J"?

 

[sojourner]

Jehovah isnt hebrew--Yahweh is Hebrew--- if no j-- then why is Jerusalem correct--Joshua,Jerimiah,Job,etc,

Then "Jehovah" can't be God's name.

 

[cataway]

Then "Jehovah" can't be God's name.

with that same logic nether can you use the name Jesus

 

[sojourner]

with that same logic nether can you use the name Jesus

Oh, we can use it, alright. But we also understand that it's not an authentic pronunciation. The difference is that "Jehovah" is touted as authentic. It isn't.

 

[kjw47]

Are you implying that the Hebrew pronounces all those names with a "J"?

No Hebrew pronounces those names with a y sound--We dont speak ancient hebrew.

 

[kjw47]

Then "Jehovah" can't be God's name.

Then you cant use the name Jesus if you are right, but i know you arent.

 

[sojourner]

Then you cant use the name Jesus if you are right, but i know you arent.

See #108. [addendum]: We understand that uttering the name "Jesus" carries no inherent power, as "Jehovah" has been said to do, so it's just no the same thing at all.

 

[Harvey]

In the Bible's Gospel of John, it opens thus:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."

I would like Christians to give me their views regarding this verse, and why they believe what they believe about it. I will give you my thoughts on it.....

The Word of God says my thoughts are always wrong. I must remember myself least of all you on this forum, and subject to error. And if I say something that is wrong God will hold me responsible for loosing a soul! For our actions have consequences.

As long as I remember I am fallible and subject to error, and humblle myself, then I pray to God to show me what HE means in that verse. It doesn't matter what I think it means at all.

So let me ask. Father send me your holy spirit to give me holy spirit to tell me what you want this verse to me to mean right now. (every verse has infinite meanings, it is infinite word of God, but for right now the thought comes into my head, search for WORD,
ok
so I am putting in word into Quick Verse and I am drawn to revelation...Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.


and I see the WORD means Jesus.
that means the Bible IS JESUS, a transcript of him just like the letters I sent my wife when we were dating were Harvey. everything of my heart and mind, my deepest sentiments.
so is the Bible the word of Jesus

so, the word of God is Jesus.

ok let us now substitute what God gave me...
"In the beginning was the word [Jesus], and the word [Jesus was with God, and the word [Jesus was God."

so that is what it means since God said so in his Jesus [word of God.

 

[Shermana]

and I see the WORD means Jesus.
that means the Bible IS JESUS, a transcript of him just like the letters I sent my wife when we were dating were Harvey. everything of my heart and mind, my deepest sentiments.
so is the Bible the word of Jesus

so, the word of God is Jesus.

ok let us now substitute what God gave me...
"In the beginning was the word [Jesus], and the word [Jesus was with God, and the word [Jesus was God."

so that is what it means since God said so in his Jesus [word of God.

The word "Word" here is Logos, and more or less means "Wisdom" rather than simply "word" in this case, though it can in fact mean "word", but it is most usually identified in the "wisdom" sense.

Even Extremely reactionary Trinitarian apologetic sites like Tektonics admits that it's more "Wisdom" than "Word".

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html

Jesus is clearly alluding to the passages in the very popular work of Sirach. His listeners would have recognized that he was associating himself with Wisdom.

Matthew 12:42//Luke 11:31 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. ​

Noting the association of Solomon with the Wisdom literature, Witherington writes (186, 192):

If it is true that Jesus made a claim that something greater than Solomon was present in and through his ministry, one must ask what it could be...Surely the most straightforward answer would be that Wisdom had come in person.​

It is identified with the Firstborn Created thing, the personification of Wisdom itself, and was the first thing "brought forth", as well as first thing "Created" (Sirach). It is not at all referring to the written word but the source of which that Word came. And besides, the current version of the Bible is not by any means necessarily the complete, intended or original form of what the "Word" is supposed to be.

With that said, as I've discussed many times before, it's an Anarthrous Theos, and should read as "The word was a god". Angels and "Divine beings" were in fact called "gods" by the Hebrews, even Josephus acknowledged "lesser gods" who were assigned roles in Heaven by the 1st century and Paul acknowledges this too, and the "Logos" or "Wisdom" was widely understood, such as seen in Proverbs 8, Sirach 1 and 24, and Wisdom of Solomon 7-9, that it was the First Created Soul who acted as the sort of "Workhorse" of Creation, of which the Father made all things THROUGH. And don't even try with Colwell's "rule". No scholar outside of Christiandom accepts it, and it never existed until it was "discovered" in the 1930s around the same time numerous independent scholarly versions were discarding the "Word was God" translation. And it's simply disproven by its own rules numerous times elsewhere, so they resorted to saying its an arbitrary rule "to fit the context".

(every verse has infinite meanings, i

I highly disagree, I don't believe the authors intended much more than the very specific thing they intended to say, even if it's in parable form, when the Disciples ask what Jesus means, he doens't say "Well this parable has many meanings", he gives a very specific, very narrow and linear interpretation that is only interpreted one way. I don't believe in this "many interpretations and meanings" stuff, I think each verse was meant to convey a specific meaning and what the author intended, nothing more.

 

[sojourner]

and I see the WORD means Jesus.
that means the Bible IS JESUS, a transcript of him just like the letters I sent my wife when we were dating were Harvey. everything of my heart and mind, my deepest sentiments.
so is the Bible the word of Jesus

so, the word of God is Jesus.

ok let us now substitute what God gave me...
"In the beginning was the word [Jesus], and the word [Jesus was with God, and the word [Jesus was God."

so that is what it means since God said so in his Jesus [word of God.

That's not what the passage means. It's not at all a question of synonymous terminology. It's a question of Who the person of Jesus is.

 

[Rise]

In the Bible's Gospel of John, it opens thus:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."

I would like Christians to give me their views regarding this verse, and why they believe what they believe about it. I will give you my thoughts on it.

There's a few problems here in the Greek. The first is on the word "word". The Greek word is "logos", which actually has various shades of meaning, but in pre-NT times, it meant reason, or something similar. Christians say that Jesus is the word, the logos, but do they really understand what that means? If we take the word logos to mean it's common meaning of reason, then how can an abstract idea like reason be in human form? Now, logos can mean word, or more generally, language. The Greek word lexis also means word, and they both come from the same root. But, lexis is generally the word used to denote a word itself, while logos is used to denote the reason, or idea, behind the word. My question is this: with this definition of logos, how can Christians logically equate it with living person? How does this make any sense, or how can this be reconciled philosophically?

Another problem is with the phrase, "and the logos was God". While it's ambiguous, the general syntax of the Greek suggests that the logos wasn't God, but "a god", or "divine".

To me, it seems like a better interpretation of this verse would be to assume that the "logos" was not Jesus, but the divine will or reason of God. Any thoughts?

God creates through his Word - He wills something, He thinks it, and then He speaks it, and that which he spoke comes into existance.

John says right there that the Word "is" God, not just describing something God does or an aspect of Him. His will and action is the very definition of who He is, it is His nature.

John goes on to say that Christ is the Word become flesh. Not that he was flesh created by the Word, but that he was the Word itself represented in flesh. That is why Jesus says that whomever has seen Him has seen the Father, He is the express image of who and what God is, His character, in a fleshly form - a form we can relate to.

John also tells us that the Word existed in the beginning, that the Word was WITH God, in addition to actually being God, and further that all things came into being through Him.

In Genesis it says "let US make man in Our image".

To summarize what that means:
Christ existed before the creation of the world, as an expression of God's Word.
The Father willed something to happen, His Son came into agreement with that and then spoke for things to happen, and His Spirit moved to make it happen.

We were made in His image.
That is why we have a similar relationship with the Father, where after we are reborn to be more Christ like we come into agreement with what the Father wills, we speak and declare things, and His spirit moves to make it happen (and this gets recognized by us as a miracle).

 

[Shermana]

God creates through his Word - He wills something, He thinks it, and then He speaks it, and that which he spoke comes into existance.

Yes, the Logos is the vehicle of which all things are made through. God is still the Creator, but all Creation is made THROUGH the logos, like a tool.

John says right there that the Word "is" God, not just describing something God does or an aspect of Him. His will and action is the very definition of who He is, it is His nature.

John says that word is "a god". Angels are called gods. Even Josephus acknowledged the possibility of subordinate existent beings called "gods" in the 1st century.

John goes on to say that Christ is the Word become flesh. Not that he was flesh created by the Word, but that he was the Word itself represented in flesh. That is why Jesus says that whomever has seen Him has seen the Father, He is the express image of who and what God is, His character, in a fleshly form - a form we can relate to.

You are right in that Jesus is the "image" of the Father, but that's about where it ends, he is merely the representative. It's not far removed from the phrase "He's the spittin' image of his dad".

John also tells us that the Word existed in the beginning, that the Word was WITH God, in addition to actually being God, and further that all things came into being through Him.

Yes, if the word was WITH God, then it can't BE God, but "a god".

In Genesis it says "let US make man in Our image".

And the general midrash seems to agree that this was about Angels.

To summarize what that means:
Christ existed before the creation of the world, as an expression of God's Word.

But was nonetheless the "Firstborn of Creation", the first created being, who existed before the "World" was created.

We were made in His image.
That is why we have a similar relationship with the Father, where after we are reborn to be more Christ like we come into agreement with what the Father wills, we speak and declare things, and His spirit moves to make it happen (and this gets recognized by us as a miracle).

[/quote]And what sort of "miracle" would you show as an example of a Christian who is moved as such?

 

[Rise]

Yes, the Logos is the vehicle of which all things are made through. God is still the Creator, but all Creation is made THROUGH the logos, like a tool.

The bible doesn't say the Word is just a tool. It says the Word is personified as God, and through Him all things were created.

John says that word is "a god".

According to what?
That's not what it actually says.

You are right in that Jesus is the "image" of the Father, but that's about where it ends, he is merely the representative. It's not far removed from the phrase "He's the spittin' image of his dad".

The bible disagrees with you.

The Word is God, and Christ was the Word made flesh.
He may be a human representation of who and what God is, but he is still God himself.

Yes, if the word was WITH God, then it can't BE God, but "a god".

Your own logic is not the basis for concluding what God can and cannot be. The bible says he he is simultaneously God and Christ at the same time, different representations of the same thing - They are both the Word. That is why God can be the Word and have the Word be with him.

And what sort of "miracle" would you show as an example of a Christian who is moved as such?

Miracles happen all the time at my church. I've seen a few personally.

When you come into agreement with what God wants to do in a situation, then the power of his Spirit moves to make it happen.

 

[Shermana]

Rise:

The bible doesn't say the Word is just a tool. It says the Word is personified as God, and through Him all things were created.

It never says the Word is personified as God except through twisted Trintiarian interpretations. Wisdom of Solomon indeed says that Wisdom was the vehicle of which all things were made, including Proverbs 8. And to a degree, so does Colossians and Revelation . As I've brought up before on this thread (in addition to other issues I have repeated on this thread such as the "a god" part), the word "Dia" means more or less "Through" than "by", even though "by" is an adequate word to use, the context is as "the method" rather than "The origin".

According to what?
That's not what it actually says.

"Nuh uh."

Yes, that's what the Bible actually says. According to a vast amount of independent, non-church aligned scholars. Would you like a list? I have discussed John 1:1c more time than I can count on this site alone.

The bible disagrees with you.

Nuh uh, it disagrees with you.

The Word is God, and Christ was the Word made flesh.

The word is a god. Do you want to just repeat yourself or you want to discuss the grammatical issue of the Anarthrous and how Colwell's rule is totally fabricated and based on an attempt to defend orthodox tradition?

He may be a human representation of who and what God is, but he is still God himself.

No he's not. He's the incarnation of the Firstborn of Creation, the Personification of Wisdom.

Your own logic is not the basis for concluding what God can and cannot be.

And yours is?

The bible says he he is simultaneously God and Christ at the same time, different representations of the same thing - They are both the Word. That is why God can be the Word and have the Word be with him.

No it does not, only in twisted Trinitarian interpretations that distort the grammar to fit their conclusions. I've discussed practically EVERY Trinitarian "proof text" in depth on this on this site many times perhaps I will have to get into it all over again. Let me warn you ahead of time, I've seen EVERY standard Trinitarian claim of proof text there is.

Miracles happen all the time at my church. I've seen a few personally.

Please describe some.

When you come into agreement with what God wants to do in a situation, then the power of his Spirit moves to make it happen.

I agree that God will grant miracles when He chooses, I don't see the relevance though. I asked for specific examples, not an explanation of what a Miracle is.

 

[Rise]

It never says the Word is personified as God

"and the Word was God"

Yes, that's what the Bible actually says.

Pull up the greek and show why it says that.

Please describe some.
I agree that God will grant miracles when He chooses, I don't see the relevance though. I asked for specific examples, not an explanation of what a Miracle is.

The relevance is because we are called to be sons like Christ, engaging in the same relationship with the Father that he has as someone who has been given authority over creation to speak things on behalf of the Father's will and see them manifest into reality.

That was His relationship to the Father before the foundation of the world, when it was said " Let Us make man in Our image". And it says all things were created through Him.

The exact miracles are extremely diverse, everything from supernatural healing, to various forms of protection, to supernatural manifestations. Is there a reason you need specifics?

 

[Shermana]

Rise:

"and the Word was God"

And the word was a god. We can do this all day.

Pull up the greek and show why it says that.

70-John-1-1-Truths

Now before I start plucking examples like:

(10) Robert Young, LL.D. , A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"--Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1885 Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d., page 54--ISBN: 0801099102


and


(11) Leicester Ambrose Sawyer, "And the logos was a god"--Leicester Ambrose Sawyer, 1879
THE FINAL THEOLOGY, Vol 1 "Introduction to the New Testament, Historic, Theologic and Critical, p. 353.
Google Books


Do you even know what the concept of "Anarthrous" means?

The relevance is because we are called to be sons like Christ, engaging in the same relationship with the Father that he has as someone who has been given authority over creation to speak things on behalf of the Father's will and see them manifest into reality.

Okay, if anything I can say that basically fits what I'm saying instead. How does that support your point?

That was His relationship to the Father before the foundation of the world, when it was said " Let Us make man in Our image". And it says all things were created through Him.

Ah, you believe that Genesis 1:26 is God talking to Himself? Most early Midrash agrees it was God talking to the Angels who were in fact called "gods" seemingly even by Josephus. And yes, it was THROUGH Jesus that they were created. All you are doing is proving my own case.