We can know the meaning of John 1:1 from John 1:3

[viole]

Compare this,

to this,

Made or created in China is like everything we see or have seen were made or created in China. Without made or created in China we would be naked, wouldn’t we?

Yes, but he did not write: without him nothing was made that we SEE or have SEEN. But even in this form, the sentence would be trivial: without him, what we see, has not been made. Sure, I already know that.

So, i am not sure what your point is. You are just changing words to John that do not exist in the original writing. And according to the OP his words cannot easily be mistranslated, unless you think that making and seeing mean the same thing. So?

To extend his way of thinking to your example of China: without China, nothing was made (in China) that has been made.

Which is equally funny.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Does His non existence unmake things?

Coincides with this logic.

Colossians 1:17
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[viole]

Coincides with this logic.

Colossians 1:17
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

What logic? You are confusing "him" with gravitation

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

What logic?

Ciao

- viole

Pantheist logic of course.

 

[JM2C]

We are given the same opportunity in John 1 verses 12 and 13. "12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

Meaning Jesus is first born but not the last.

Your meaning here, "Jesus is first born" [as in a created being], is unfounded, or not in the bible.

JW would argue that relentlessly in,
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Compare that verse to this,
Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

The meaning of John 1:12-13 is,

Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; [V13 children born [not] of natural descent, [nor] of human decision or a husband’s will,] and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [v13 but born of God]

 

[idav]

Your meaning here, "Jesus is first born" [as in a created being], is unfounded, or not in the bible.

JW would argue that relentlessly in,
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Compare that verse to this,
Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

The meaning of John 1:12-13 is,

Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; [V13 children born [not] of natural descent, [nor] of human decision or a husband’s will,] and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [v13 but born of God]

It is scriptural and you pointed it out even. Only begotten means the same thing.

 

[JM2C]

Yes, but he did not write: without him nothing was made that we SEE or have SEEN.

If you stop at, “without Him nothing was made” the only logical conclusion should be “nothing was made without Him”

Its sounds like circular fallacy but the thing is, one can not understand this doctrine unless one is really deep into this doctrine spiritually.

Christianity is a revealed religion.

The things to be revealed are "unsearchable" because they are beyond the grasp of human knowledge.


Colossian 1:16-17 should explain John 1:3 without giving another analogy. Idav understood it very well “He is before all things”.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[JM2C]

You are just changing words to John that do not exist in the original writing.
And according to the OP his words cannot easily be mistranslated, unless you think that making and seeing mean the same thing. So?

Just making analogy without being guilty of analogical extrapolation.

 

[JM2C]

To extend his way of thinking to your example of China: without China, nothing was made (in China) that has been made.
Which is equally funny.
Ciao
- viole

No, not really. I was not extending John’s thoughts beyond what it really meant. If you follow your statements here:

#1) So, John says, basically, that everything we see or have seen has been created by God , or the Word thereof.
It is not exactly what John 1:3 says, though.
#2) He says that everything that has been made, would not have been made without God.

You are disagreeing with your statement #1 from statement #2 by saying “It is not exactly what John 1:3 says, though” which are the same to me in an analogous way.

Therefore, I made this analogy base on your misunderstanding of your own statements:
Made or created in China is like everything we see or have seen were made or created in China. Without made or created in China we would be naked, wouldn’t we?

You see how you misinterpret me by trying to confuse me with your baseless theory that does nothing but contradicts itself.

Speculative philosophy is nothing but pure speculation or no basis at all.