John 1:1

[Xchristian]

Here's my tuppence worth:

The 'word' is the Torah.
This is a hymn that was sung by jews of the time,

In the beginning there was the Torah,
The Torah was with god
and the Torah was divine.

If you read the Greek version you will see that it rhymes till 1:6 and 1:15 which feel like redaction.

Prof Ehrman put the score right in his masterpiece, introduction to the new testament.

 

[jtartar]

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?

Dyanaprajna,
Allow me please to give you a few thoughts about John 1:1,2.
First, was there one person there or two??? When John used the word WITH God, it seems to me to be two people. Notice that the scripture says "and the word was god, lacking a definite article for God. Remember, there are many called gods, but there is to a Christian ONE GOD, 1Cor 8:5,6.
I fail to see why it is difficult to believe that Jesus is called The Word. Do you not know that Jesus is also call the Lamb of God???
To me the proof that Jesus is called the Word is at verse John 1:14 where it is stated that the Word became flesh and reside amoung us, John 1:14-18, 29.
The Bible tells us that Jesus was the very FIRST of all God's creations, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14.
At Rev 19:11-21 we are told about the destruction that will take place at Armageddon. Here Jesus is called The Word, verse 13. Now we know for sure that this is the same war that is mentioned a 2Thes 1:6-9.
No matter how anyone interprets John 1:1, it does not change God's word, because Jesus, to all creation is a mighty god, but not THE ALMIGHTY GOD, Isa 9:6,7. Just for understanding, Jehovah God is called El Shaddai, while the mighty god is El Babbohr, two different gods.
Some Bibles interpret John 1:18 to say the Only Begotten God. This term only begotten seems to mean that Jesus is the only thing that God Jehovah created by Himself, with no one else to help. After he created Jesus all other things were created THROUGH JESUS and FOR JESUS, John 1:3, 1Cor 8:5,6, Col 1:16, in most Bibles, Heb 1:2.
Most Theologists concider Prov 8:22-31, to be speaking about Jesus as the MASTERWORKER of God's. Would that not be Jesus??
Would it not be Jesus who God was speaking to when He said: Let us make man in OUR image??? Gen 1:26.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you read the Greek version

Can you?

 

[Shermana]

Dyanaprajna,
Allow me please to give you a few thoughts about John 1:1,2.
First, was there one person there or two??? When John used the word WITH God, it seems to me to be two people. Notice that the scripture says "and the word was god, lacking a definite article for God. Remember, there are many called gods, but there is to a Christian ONE GOD, 1Cor 8:5,6.
I fail to see why it is difficult to believe that Jesus is called The Word. Do you not know that Jesus is also call the Lamb of God???
To me the proof that Jesus is called the Word is at verse John 1:14 where it is stated that the Word became flesh and reside amoung us, John 1:14-18, 29.
The Bible tells us that Jesus was the very FIRST of all God's creations, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14.
At Rev 19:11-21 we are told about the destruction that will take place at Armageddon. Here Jesus is called The Word, verse 13. Now we know for sure that this is the same war that is mentioned a 2Thes 1:6-9.
No matter how anyone interprets John 1:1, it does not change God's word, because Jesus, to all creation is a mighty god, but not THE ALMIGHTY GOD, Isa 9:6,7. Just for understanding, Jehovah God is called El Shaddai, while the mighty god is El Babbohr, two different gods.
Some Bibles interpret John 1:18 to say the Only Begotten God. This term only begotten seems to mean that Jesus is the only thing that God Jehovah created by Himself, with no one else to help. After he created Jesus all other things were created THROUGH JESUS and FOR JESUS, John 1:3, 1Cor 8:5,6, Col 1:16, in most Bibles, Heb 1:2.
Most Theologists concider Prov 8:22-31, to be speaking about Jesus as the MASTERWORKER of God's. Would that not be Jesus??
Would it not be Jesus who God was speaking to when He said: Let us make man in OUR image??? Gen 1:26.

So then you should agree that it says "Word was a god" as many independent Greek scholars agree.

 

[Rise]

Jesus told us to obey His commandments.
You think He is including the mosaic law in that statement.
But if you say that the mosaic law is "His" commandments, doesn't that require you to believe that Jesus is YHVH?

 

[The Real Milk Man]

Jesus said, (John 14:23-24), "If anyone loves me, he will obey 'My' teaching. ..."

John 17:3, Jesus said, "And this is eternal life: that they may know you [Father, John17:1], the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

John 12:47-48, Jesus spoke in a loud voice(v:44), "If people hear 'My words' and do not obey them, I will not judge them. I came, not to judge the world, but to save it. Those who reject me and do not accept 'My words' have one who will judge them. The words that 'I have spoken' will be their judge on the last day."

John 14:23-24, "If anyone loves me, he will obey 'My' teaching. ..."


John 14:1, "Let not your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe 'Also' in me."



In the love of Christ, sincerely, The Real Milk Man.

God and His Son loves you, and I do too!

Whatever is the overflow of the heart, is what comes out of the mouth.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What a very old thread. Can we start over or something?

 

[Walkntune]

Jesus said, (John 14:23-24), "If anyone loves me, he will obey 'My' teaching. ..."

John 17:3, Jesus said, "And this is eternal life: that they may know you [Father, John17:1], the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

John 12:47-48, Jesus spoke in a loud voice(v:44), "If people hear 'My words' and do not obey them, I will not judge them. I came, not to judge the world, but to save it. Those who reject me and do not accept 'My words' have one who will judge them. The words that 'I have spoken' will be their judge on the last day."

John 14:23-24, "If anyone loves me, he will obey 'My' teaching. ..."


John 14:1, "Let not your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe 'Also' in me."



In the love of Christ, sincerely, The Real Milk Man.

God and His Son loves you, and I do too!

Whatever is the overflow of the heart, is what comes out of the mouth.

Jesus also said speaking about the Torah,
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Was the Torah written about God or Jesus ?
When did Moses write about Jesus?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Was the Torah written about God or Jesus ?
When did Moses write about Jesus?

In Christendom...."both".....In Judaism..they don't believe it has anything to do with Yeshua.

But these two quotes are talking about a man who Moses was writing about....

"Clark's Commentary On The Bible" links these sayings to Deuteronomy 18:18

"I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him."

That goes hand in hand with...the supposed words of Yeshua.....

John 12:49
For I have not spoken from myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment, what I should speak, and what I should say.

Well....at least that's what the biblical John The Baptist believed about Yeshua...

John 3:34
For he whom God has sent, speaks the words of God; for God has not given the Spirit by measure.

Basically "God" and Yeshua are separate...not the same...

 

[Ivan-Michael]

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?

Absolutely.
Logos-reason- Mind- God -Elohim (plural) the plurality of the mind.
Gen.1 it's only God, Elohim, the Mind, our perception, what we perceive, fashion (create), measure (Ba-Ra-in the spirit of Ra).
Jesus-Yesua=salvation (Hebrew)=Salvage, it's a concept.
What we say counts, it is our reason that speaks, if we have reason, because through the confounding of the language (our thought process) we are confused and have no reason, the Lord (YHVH, Adonai, Baal), Lord earth, becomes our God, someonme else tells us how and what to think, the outcome is confusion in our minds, no Logos.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?

Why do you assume you are a better translator of Greek than the translators?

 

[Shermana]

Why do you assume you are a better translator of Greek than the translators?

Which translators? Why do you think the translators who use "Divine" like David Wallace, Goodspeed, and Moffatt (Professor Emeritus of Oxford) aren't a better translator than the others? Do you think that Conservative Christian scholars are the only translators who count? Even some of the most well respected Christian scholars have used "Divine" instead. The "A god" translation is backed by numerous independent Greek scholars.

All he's doing is repeating what other Greek scholars have said.

Are you simply unaware that there are scholarly translators who disagree with other translations, especially those that tend to be church-aligned?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Which translators? Why do you think the translators who use "Divine" like David Wallace, Goodspeed, and Moffatt (Professor Emeritus of Oxford) aren't a better translator than the others? Do you think that Conservative Christian scholars are the only translators who count? Even some of the most well respected Christian scholars have used "Divine" instead. The "A god" translation is backed by numerous independent Greek scholars.

All he's doing is repeating what other Greek scholars have said.

Are you simply unaware that there are scholarly translators who disagree with other translations, especially those that tend to be church-aligned?

I only read the first few pages. Did the original poster offer any of this info or back up their supposition in any of the 18 pages?

 

[Desert Snake]

Why do you assume you are a better translator of Greek than the translators?

Many people assume that. I usually ignore them

 

[arhys]

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.

It has to do with the Incarnation. This verse:

1) affirms Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth)

2) affirms the eternal nature of God (he pre-exists creation)

3) affirms Christ's presence at the creation

4) affirms that Jesus was not created, but was both God and man (John 1:14: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us)

5) affirms that Jesus is God (a member of the Godhead or Trinity)

6) affirms the eternal nature of Jesus as God the Son

 

[Xchristian]

1) affirms Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth)

what has genesis got to do with the hanged peasant please?

jesus couldn't understand what 'logos' means, he was a simple person from palestine, the son of a carpenter.

 

[Shermana]

It has to do with the Incarnation. This verse:

1) affirms Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth)

2) affirms the eternal nature of God (he pre-exists creation)

3) affirms Christ's presence at the creation

4) affirms that Jesus was not created, but was both God and man (John 1:14: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us)

The word "Arche", or "in the beginning" does not necessarily mean "The very beginning before the Angels were created". It could mean "In the beginning phases". We see in Job 38:7 that the Angels existed before the World was founded.

5) affirms that Jesus is God (a member of the Godhead or Trinity)

6) affirms the eternal nature of Jesus as God the Son

[/quote]It affirms that Jesus is a god (An Angel, as Angels are called gods), not God when read correctly. The incarnation of Wisdom, or the Logos, as mentioned in PRoverbs 8.

 

[maklelan]

The word "Arche", or "in the beginning" does not necessarily mean "The very beginning before the Angels were created". It could mean "In the beginning phases". We see in Job 38:7 that the Angels existed before the World was founded.

It affirms that Jesus is a god (An Angel, as Angels are called gods), not God when read correctly. The incarnation of Wisdom, or the Logos, as mentioned in PRoverbs 8.

Some good points, but it should be noted that the "sons of God" from Job 38:7 (and Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Ps 29:1; 82:6; 89:7; Job 1:6; 2:1) were not identified with angels until the Greco-Roman period. I discuss this further here.

By way of support for your comment about John 1:1, I would also point out that the first word of Genesis 1:1 is best read not as an absolute, but as a construct phrase. In other words, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was . . ." It is not "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." A good discussion of this is found here.

 

[Shermana]

Some good points, but it should be noted that the "sons of God" from Job 38:7 (and Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Ps 29:1; 82:6; 89:7; Job 1:6; 2:1) were not identified with angels until the Greco-Roman period. I discuss this further here.

So the "Sons of god" were considered some other kinds of beings who celebrated the construction of the World at the time Job was written? Are you implying there was a race of people who weren't angels who existed before the world was created?

Clearly, the context of Job 38:7 indicates that the reference was indeed to Angels, without using the other verses, and there's really no proof that they were considered anything but. The idea that this changed at the time of the Greco-Roman period is 100% baseless. If anything, the Greco-Roman period may indicate the time when the "rationalist" idea emerged that they were NOT Angels, in some circles at least.

But there's no question that the "Sons of god" in Job 38:7 apparently existed before the Creation of the world, so the idea that its referring to humans there goes out the window. The references in the other locations are entire debates' threads worth on their own, but using Job 38:7 as a guide, there's definitely much weight to the idea that the Book of Enoch wasn't just a "Greco-Roman" era concept but existed since way before Job was written.

By way of support for your comment about John 1:1, I would also point out that the first word of Genesis 1:1 is best read not as an absolute, but as a construct phrase. In other words, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was . . ." It is not "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." A good discussion of this is found here

That may be true.

 

[maklelan]

So the "Sons of god" were considered some other kinds of beings who celebrated the construction of the World at the time Job was written? Are you implying there was a race of people who weren't angels who existed before the world was created?

No, they were second tier deities. They were the offspring of the first tier deities, the king and queen of the cosmos. Angels were third tier servant deities.

Clearly, the context of Job 38:7 indicates that the reference was indeed to Angels, without using the other verses, and there's really no proof that they were considered anything but. The idea that this changed at the time of the Greco-Roman period is 100% baseless. If anything, the Greco-Roman period may indicate the time when the "rationalist" idea emerged that they were NOT Angels, in some circles at least.

Please refer yourself to the paper I shared in relation to the question. There's quite an extensive discussion, with references, in it. It's a paper I presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Atlanta in 2010.

But there's no question that the "Sons of god" in Job 38:7 apparently existed before the Creation of the world, so the idea that its referring to humans there goes out the window.

Obviously.

The references in the other locations are entire debates' threads worth on their own, but using Job 38:7 as a guide, there's definitely much weight to the idea that the Book of Enoch wasn't just a "Greco-Roman" era concept but existed since way before Job was written.

Not necessarily. You would have to be able to show the direction of influence between the two, and I don't believe that argument can be that strongly made. I'd love to see it, though.

That may be true.