A New Exposition of John 1: 1-12

[Sparkey]

[FONT=&quot]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.” [/FONT] [FONT=&quot](JOHN 1:1-14 AV)

"But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

The other disciples therefore said unto him, "We have seen the Lord".

But he said unto them, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace [be] unto you." Then saith he to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."

And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord and my God."

Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. - John 20:24-31 KJV

.[/FONT]

 

[TonkaTim]

Or, is it possible John understood Genesis 1:1, especially the context of the now untranslated words et & vet?

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית - be·re·shit - in the beginning
בָּרָ֣א - ba·ra - created
אֱלֹהִ֑ים - e·lo·him - God
אֵ֥ת - et - (untranslated aleph, tav)
הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם - ha·sha·ma·yim - the heavens
וְאֵ֥ת - ve·'et - (untranslated vav, aleph, tav)
הָאָֽרֶץ׃ - ha·'a·retz - the earth

Aleph means strength/leader and is the first letter in modern Hebrew & ancient pictogram language Moses used.
Tav means mark/sign/covenant and the the last letter in modern Hebrew & ancient pictogram language Moses used. (The original pictogram for this letter is the same as the cross which we as Believers use as a the mark/sign/covenant of Jesus.)
Vav means nail/peg.

I think these untranslated words may be very important or Moses would not have written them.

Considering Moses did not use the singular word for God, el (aleph lamed- staff), but instead used elohim which shows a plurality or something greater than a pure singularity and followed with the et which appears to symbolizes the leader of the covenant. What is Moses telling us here about the Creator? Was he declaring Christ with the Father in the beginning?

The next two translated words are heavens & earth with the vet between them, vav - nail, aleph - leader, tav - covenant, we visually see the true leader between the nail & the cross as the connector between heaven & earth. Was Moses declaring Christ the only Way from the beginning? Does this make Moses & John in agreement?

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

 

[Asyncritus]

This is the Apologetics Forum. By it's very nature, communication is essential between posters.

You haven't addressed this question by mcgyver and and the other questions either.

It is most important that we know the source of what you have posted.

Thanks.

Hi Vic

I'm sorry, I had to dash off yesterday and couldn't reply to Mac and the others.

I am the sole author of the work. As to the source, you can see that it is plain and simple Bible study, not the books of others.

I posted the piece in response to Free's repeated assertion that nobody has replied to his points about John 1. I thought it was time somebody did.

Asyncritus

 

[Asyncritus]

So A, (hope you don't mind me shortening your handle), are you under the impression that the beginning of John COULD NOT say that Jesus was divine based on John's purpose for the writing or are you saying that it simply DOES NOT convey that message?

I suppose all things are possible.

But it would be extremely odd if a book whose intention was to show that Jesus was God the Son began and ended with a passage which showed that He was the Son of God - and then completely failed to mention that He was God the Son.

That is a most curious omission, don't you think?

The Jews, who were the first readers of the book did not, could not, and would not believe that He was God the Son. They still don't do so today.

Their reaction when they thought that He was claiming to be God, is a perfect illustration of that.

Therefore, if John's intention was to show that He was God the Son, it would have been essential to state hs case at the outset, or at the conclusion. That was not his intention, and that is proved by the statement that the book was written to show Jesus as the Son of God, and that those who believe that would be saved.

So in sum, and to answer your question, I am saying that it DOES NOT convey that message.

 

[Asyncritus]

"But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

The other disciples therefore said unto him, "We have seen the Lord".

But he said unto them, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace [be] unto you." Then saith he to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."

And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord and my God."

Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. - John 20:24-31 KJV

.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Sparrow

You are laying huge emphasis, in this most gigantic of doctrines, on the word of a man who just 5 minutes previously was denying and refusing to believe that He had risen from the dead.

That is a bit odd, don't you think? And doesn't it strike you as strange that NOT ONE of the other disciples/ apostles ever said anything of the kind? Did they, or didn't they, believe it?

Furthermore, you have quoted the very passage, which above all, establishes most clearly that Jesus is the SON OF GOD, and declared to be such by the resurrection from the dead {Rom 1.4}. That is the cardinal doctrine of Christianity, and one for which the very early church suffered immense persecutions and death at the hands of the Jews.

Here it is again, in case you've forgotten what you wrote:[FONT=&quot]

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing [clearly that He IS the Son of God - my parenthesis] ye might have life through his name. - John 20:24-31 KJV[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Or, is it possible John understood Genesis 1:1, especially the context of the now untranslated words et & vet?

[...]

Was Moses declaring Christ the only Way from the beginning? Does this make Moses & John in agreement?

They must be, but perhaps not in the way you think.

Just to remind you, John is not concerned with creation as a whole. No trees, animals, mountains etc etc are mentioned, only the separation of light from darkness.

Even light and darkness are used figuratively, and decidedly not literally.

The light represents the Lord and His message, and the darkness represents His enemies who did their level best to extinguish it by killing Him.

In the other gospels, as I have shown, perhaps for the first time in expository history, the figures of light and darkness are used in exactly the same way as John uses them.

Given those facts, why are you seeking to interpret Jn1.1 literally?

 

[Asyncritus]

I hope you are not making the following argument:

1. The stated intent of this book is to establish that Jesus is the Son of God;
2. Therefore, it cannot be the case that Jesus is "God" in substance.

I do beg your pardon Drew, but you have to be a little clearer than that for us bears of little brain.

What does 'in substance' mean?

That would beg the question of Jesus divine status, of course, be presuming that Jesus cannot be, in some sense, a "son" to the Father, and yet still be divine.

I have more than a little difficulty with the use of the word 'divine'.

The NT gives very little usage to go on. Here are the only 3 occurrences of the word in English and in Greek in the NT:

Acts 17.29: '... we ought not to think that that which is divine (RV marg) is like unto silver and gold...'

2 Pet 1. 3: '...his divine power hath granted us all things that pertain to unto life and godliness...

2 Pet 1. 4: '...that through these ye might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.'

So from that last verse, it sounds as if we too will become divine. Is that what you had in mind?

 

[Free]

JOHN 1: 1 –12 in its proper context

The context dictates the meaning of every passage: we ignore it at our peril. So making the assumption that John wasn’t unwell when he wrote this, we have to think that the first section of this chapter has some connection with the rest of it.

But yet in our discussion on Phil 2, I pointed out several times where you ignored the context and you still have continued to do so. Why does this only apply to John 1?

But what?

This is the start of John’s gospel. What was his object in writing it? He summarises the gospel thus:

“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (John 20:31 AV)

Therefore, whatever this unusual prologue means, IT IS WRITTEN TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD.

If this was intended to establish the concept that Jesus was God - something which would really take some establishing in the minds of Jews! - then the 20:31 statement is completely up the creek. Any interpretation which flies in the face of John’s stated purpose must, of necessity be completely wrong, and a denial of his intention.

No one is denying that Jesus is the Son of God.

Part 3

The only sensible reason for his allusions that makes any sense – and I am quite open to any better suggestions here – is that he is introducing the Beginning of the New Creation of God in Christ. Nothing else makes contextual sense.

No. And here you are ignoring what the Greek actually states, as per my argument.

Furthermore, the introduction is not really about the creation of the planet, but the

separation of light from darkness. Why does he not mention the creation of trees, dry land and all the other things mentioned in Genesis 1?

Because the separation of light and darkness is the only point relevant to the theme of his gospel, and he sticks rigidly to it.

And so too do the other gospel writers! Matthew writes:


“ The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.” (Matthew 4:15-16 AV)

Mark makes no reference to light and darkness, but kicks off with a quotation from Isaiah 40 – which, strikingly enough comes only a handful of verses after Hezekiah has been typically ‘raised from the dead’ i.e. emerged from darkness into light.
Luke records this beautiful early prophecy:

“… through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” (Luke 1:78-79 AV)

As you can now see, the darkness John refers to, in line with the other gospel writers, is the darkness of death.

This is an exceedingly important point: because we can now place John’s gospel prologue firmly in the contextual company of the other gospels. He is no longer out on his own little limb.

I'm sorry Asyncritus but your "new interpretation" makes so many assumptions that I don't even know where to begin.


Here is the post to which you are trying to respond to:

I'm sure you would agree that everything John says, he says for a reason. And this is why I have continually stated that any Christology or theology proper must take into account all that Scripture reveals about God. What I am about to post is posted more than once around these forums and has yet to receive any substantial attempt at a rebuttal.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Greek word for "was" is en, which denotes a continuous action in the past or absolute existence. In other words, in John's clear allusion to Gen. 1, the Word already was in existence at the beginning of creation. This cannot be understood other than to say that the Word existed for eternity past. This is further supported by verse 3, which I will address in a moment.

John's choice of wording is quite specific with "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It cannot be "a god," as this is polytheism and completely against all of Scripture.His use of language is such that the Word is not equated to all of God or God to all of the Word, which would make Word and God interchangeable. John's point is who the Word is, not who God is. And this leaves only one translation, and that is what is above, which the majority of translations state.

The Word both "was with God" and "was God"--God in nature, yet distinct from God in some way. This is where only the Trinity makes sense.


Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The breakdown of verse 3 is as follows:

P1. If "All things were made through" the Word,
P2. And "Without [the Word] was not any thing made that was made,"
C It follows that the Word could not have been made.

This is in perfect agreement with verse 1, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17 and Acts 3:15.


Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here John uses a significant Greek word for "became," egeneto, which means an action in time. It is also the same word translated as "made" in verse 3. This is very significant because here we see John making a clear distinction between the Word's eternal preexistence in verse 1 (en), with the Word entering into time (egeneto) and becoming flesh.

This is further supported by Phil 2:6-8.


Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)


All I ask is that since you claim it is easy to understand, then please show me where either the Greek is wrong, or my reasoning of verse 3 is wrong, or both. The Greek absolutely does your whole argument in, so that might be a good starting point.

Please, quote the above as necessary to respond to the points.

 

[Sparkey]

[FONT=&quot]
And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace [be] unto you." Then saith he to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."

And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord and my God."

Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. - John 20:24-31 KJV

.[/FONT]

Sparrow

You are laying huge emphasis, in this most gigantic of doctrines, on the word of a man who just 5 minutes previously was denying and refusing to believe that He had risen from the dead.

That is a bit odd, don't you think? And doesn't it strike you as strange that NOT ONE of the other disciples/ apostles ever said anything of the kind? Did they, or didn't they, believe it?

Furthermore, you have quoted the very passage, which above all, establishes most clearly that Jesus is the SON OF GOD, and declared to be such by the resurrection from the dead {Rom 1.4}. That is the cardinal doctrine of Christianity, and one for which the very early church suffered immense persecutions and death at the hands of the Jews.

Here it is again, in case you've forgotten what you wrote:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

[FONT=&quot]

1. You state that I am placing undue emphasis on the word of a man, who just 5 minutes previously, was denying and refusing to believe. Let me remind you that the Holy Spirit was the one who used John's pen to write those words. It is the Breath of Life that spoke the words you would like to ignore.
   
   
2. You state no other believes this way and ask, "Did they or did they not believe" [that Jesus and God were utterly ONE]." The statement, that the Word was God, is the statement made by the Holy Ghost through John. Jesus was the word. The word was God; and the Word of God lived here in the flesh. He was called Emmanuel (God with us). Angels worshipped him (as did others).

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

... But unto the Son [he saith]: "Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom." [/FONT]

 

[Sparkey]

[FONT=&quot]You are correct when you declare the Doctrine of Christ and that there can be no dispute. No man who says that Jesus is not the Messiah, no angel who claims that Jesus is not the anointed One of God, no doctrine other than the doctrine of Christ: that he came in the flesh --> is of God. We both agree that Jesus is the Son of God.

We part ways when you attempt to deny the truth found throughout the Bible - that Jesus is God with us.[/font]

 

[TonkaTim]

Or, is it possible John understood Genesis 1:1, especially the context of the now untranslated words et & vet?

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית - be·re·shit - in the beginning
בָּרָ֣א - ba·ra - created
אֱלֹהִ֑ים - e·lo·him - God
אֵ֥ת - et - (untranslated aleph, tav)
הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם - ha·sha·ma·yim - the heavens
וְאֵ֥ת - ve·'et - (untranslated vav, aleph, tav)
הָאָֽרֶץ׃ - ha·'a·retz - the earth

Aleph means strength/leader and is the first letter in modern Hebrew & ancient pictogram language Moses used.
Tav means mark/sign/covenant and the the last letter in modern Hebrew & ancient pictogram language Moses used. (The original pictogram for this letter is the same as the cross which we as Believers use as a the mark/sign/covenant of Jesus.)
Vav means nail/peg.

I think these untranslated words may be very important or Moses would not have written them.

Considering Moses did not use the singular word for God, el (aleph lamed- staff), but instead used elohim which shows a plurality or something greater than a pure singularity and followed with the et which appears to symbolizes the leader of the covenant. What is Moses telling us here about the Creator? Was he declaring Christ with the Father in the beginning?

The next two translated words are heavens & earth with the vet between them, vav - nail, aleph - leader, tav - covenant, we visually see the true leader between the nail & the cross as the connector between heaven & earth. Was Moses declaring Christ the only Way from the beginning? Does this make Moses & John in agreement?

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

They must be, but perhaps not in the way you think.

Just to remind you, John is not concerned with creation as a whole. No trees, animals, mountains etc etc are mentioned, only the separation of light from darkness.

Even light and darkness are used figuratively, and decidedly not literally.

The light represents the Lord and His message, and the darkness represents His enemies who did their level best to extinguish it by killing Him.

In the other gospels, as I have shown, perhaps for the first time in expository history, the figures of light and darkness are used in exactly the same way as John uses them.

Given those facts, why are you seeking to interpret Jn1.1 literally?

   [lit-er-uh-lee] Show IPA
–adverb
1.
in the literal or strict sense: What does the word mean literally?
2.
in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally.
3.
actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy: The city was literally destroyed.
4.
in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.

You mean because I take the Word for what it actually means?

What does John say the light is? 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

Life.

The Light is Life.

Life is from the Creator. John was very clear about this. -

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

There is no hidden esoteric meaning declaring Jesus less than who He truly is. John is in complete agreement with Moses, the Prophets, the Disciples, the other Gospel writers. Jesus is God.

Since we are discussing testimony about the truth of Christ, we find very clearly in John 10 Jesus confirming who He is.

11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

19There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. 20And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? 21Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.

What we find here in John 10 is Jesus declaring Himself the fulfillment of the Good Shepherd prophecy of Ezekiel 34 where YHWH declares that He Himself will will shepherd the people. When asked again about it, Jesus confirms that He is the Christ, "the Prince among them" prophecy in Ezekiel 34. That the Prince, the Messiah, the Christ, YHWH are the same. Jesus declares this three times, first he declares his authority of Life, and not just life but eternal life which can only come from the Creator. Then Jesus declares His hand equal in power & authority to the hand of the Father. Jesus then removes all doubt with His declaration - 30 I and my Father are one.

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]
But yet in our discussion on Phil 2, I pointed out several times where you ignored the context and you still have continued to do so. Why does this only apply to John 1?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I'm sorry Free, but you claimed that I ignored the context, as I claim that you do too. So let's continue that one over there.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]No one is denying that Jesus is the Son of God. [/FONT]

Good.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

No. And here you are ignoring what the Greek actually states, as per my argument.

???? Free, do you know any Greek?[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I'm sorry Asyncritus but your "new interpretation" makes so many assumptions that I don't even know where to begin.[/FONT]

Try the start of the article.

The only assumption I make is that this is the word of God and must be treated as such.

Here is the post to which you are [FONT=&quot]trying[/FONT] to respond to:

I'm sure you would agree that everything John says, he says for a reason. And this is why I have continually stated that any Christology or theology proper must take into account all that Scripture reveals about God. What I am about to post is posted more than once around these forums and has yet to receive any substantial attempt at a rebuttal.

If you do that, as I do, then you can come to no other conclusion besides the one that the shema declares.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Greek word for "was" is en, which denotes a continuous action in the past or absolute existence. In other words, in John's clear allusion to Gen. 1, the Word already was in existence at the beginning of creation.

You haven't read the article carefully enough.

The point being made is that this is the BEGINNING OF THE NEW CREATION OF GOD in Christ. You do know about that, don't you?

This cannot be understood other than to say that the Word existed for eternity past. This is further supported by verse 3, which I will address in a moment.

As I have shown, there is an even better understanding of the verse being presented.

John's choice of wording is quite specific with "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It cannot be "a god," as this is polytheism and completely against all of Scripture

.

This point is totally invalidated by what I stated. The absence of the definite article means that a QUALITY is being described, not a thing or being. THE Son of God is entirely different to a son of God.

Moffatt is correct, and sees the proper translation as being the word was divine (which you agree with further along) - he uses the word as a quality, rather than an entity.

His use of language is such that the Word is not equated to all of God or God to all of the Word, which would make Word and God interchangeable.

You have totally ignored the fact that the Word of God is Jesus' TITLE. And John is making the ugly point that the enemies of God and Jesus will be visited by the sword.

John's point is who the Word is, not who God is. And this leaves only one translation, and that is what is above, which the majority of translations state.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.

The Word both "was with God" and "was God"--God in nature, yet distinct from God in some way. This is where only the Trinity makes sense.

That is precisely what I am saying. 'God in nature' is the exact equivalent of 'divine'. And you're in agreement with Moffatt. ‘Yet distinct from God ‘ is equally correct.

You have failed to address the meaning of the word pros (=with). Grimm-Thayer have shown that 'with' cannot be correct.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

You have completely ignored the very technical way that John uses the word 'beginning'. Please address the evidence I have adduced instead of ignoring it.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

You are again ignoring the very clear evidence that 'all things' does not mean 'everything'. But it is being used of the spiritual world - ie the Jewish world at the time .

The breakdown of verse 3 is as follows:

P1. If "All things were made through" the Word,
P2. And "Without [the Word] was not any thing made that was made,"
C It follows that the Word could not have been made.

You're ignoring the evidence again. ALL THINGS does not refer to everything. It refers to a particular subset of ‘everything’. But please re-read the article and answer the point being raised.

This is in perfect agreement with verse 1, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17 and Acts 3:15.

I have shown coherently and in great detail what Paul meant by Col 1. 16. Please re-read the post.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

'The only Son' is used so many times of the 'only-begotten'. It is plain that only when the word became flesh that it could be described as Jesus. It wasn't Jesus before on your hypothesis.

Here John uses a significant Greek word for "became," egeneto, which means an action in time. It is also the same word translated as "made" in verse 3. This is very significant because here we see John making a clear distinction between the Word's eternal preexistence in verse 1 (en), with the Word entering into time (egeneto) and becoming flesh.

The word 'egeneto' is an extremely common word, being derived from 'ginomai', being often translated ‘came to pass’. Such an understanding is very likely if this refers to prophecy about Jesus: IN THE WORD coming to pass..

You are far too taken with the wishful, philosophical meanderings of the theologians,Free. Just where do you get this idea about ‘entering into time’? Not from this passage, that’s for sure.

This is further supported by Phil 2:6-8.

I have shown that that is not the case.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

I’m afraid this version is nonsensical, and makes no sense whatsoever. It is typical of the consequences of theological misunderstanding.

The only God cannot be at the Father’s side, because the Father is the only God there is. Can you not see the self-contradiction in this translation?

Here’s the NET Bible note:

The textual problem [FONT=&quot]μονογεν[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ὴ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ς θεός[/FONT] ([FONT=&quot]monogenh" qeo"[/FONT], “the only God”) versus [FONT=&quot]ὁ[/FONT][FONT=&quot] μονογεν[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ὴ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ς υ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ἱ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ός[/FONT] ([FONT=&quot]Jo monogenh" Juio"[/FONT], “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus [FONT=&quot]qMs[/FONT] or [FONT=&quot]uMs[/FONT]. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read [FONT=&quot]θεός[/FONT] or [FONT=&quot]υ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ἱ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ός[/FONT]. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 [FONT=&quot]Θ[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Ψ[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Ë[/FONT]1,13 [FONT=&quot]Ã[/FONT] lat), read [FONT=&quot]ὁ[/FONT][FONT=&quot] μονογεν[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ὴ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ς υ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ἱ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ός[/FONT].

ESV should have had some more sense, and recognised the simple fact that 'monogenees’ which is invariably translated ‘only child, only daughter, only-begotten’ CANNOT POSSIBLY refer to the Father, the one doing the begetting.

But such is the power of theological incomprehension.

 

[Asyncritus]

 
You mean because I take the Word for what it actually means?

I don't think you do. You now demonstrate that you do grasp the figurative meaning of light, as opposed to the actual one.

What does John say the light is? 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

It's pretty obvious that 'light' here is not the visible spectrum, isn't it?

There is no hidden esoteric meaning declaring Jesus less than who He truly is. John is in complete agreement with Moses, the Prophets, the Disciples, the other Gospel writers.

This is correct. But who do you say that Jesus is?

Jesus is God.

In this you disagree with both the disciples and Jesus. Do you know that? Here:

Jesus: But who say ye that I am?
Tim: God.
Peter: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jesus approves Peter's version fully:
Blessed art thou, Simon-bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven.

Jesus again: '...because I said, I am the Son of God' 10.28

Since Jesus, the Father and Peter agree on that point, why do you disagree with them?

Since we are discussing testimony about the truth of Christ, we find very clearly in John 10 Jesus confirming who He is.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

You highlighted the wrong bit, which I have now changed. Jesus is saying that He is doing this on His Father's instructions. Back to the old passage: My Father is greater than I.(14.28)

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me...neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;[see 14.28] and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.

What we find here in John 10 is Jesus declaring Himself the fulfillment of the Good Shepherd prophecy of Ezekiel 34 where YHWH declares that He Himself will will shepherd the people. When asked again about it, Jesus confirms that He is the Christ, "the Prince among them" prophecy in Ezekiel 34. That the Prince, the Messiah, the Christ, YHWH are the same.

You might like to read my thread Who is called God in the Bible.

Jesus declares this three times, first he declares his authority of Life, and not just life but eternal life which can only come from the Creator
[who has given Jesus the authority to do this:[FONT=&quot]. “ Verily, verily, I say to you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; Andhath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” (Joh 5:25-27 )]

[/FONT]Then Jesus declares His hand equal in power & authority to the hand of the Father.

[No, He doesn't. He declared that no-one can pluck the believers out of the Father's hand, because He, the Father, IS GREATER THAN ALL V29 including Jesus Himself - 14.28]

Jesus then removes all doubt with His declaration - 30 I and my Father are one.

A pity that you spoilt it all at the end. Here's the proof:

The Jews then took up stones to stone Him because they thought He was making Himself God (v33).

He immediately corrects them with the comment: "...I am the Son of God" (v36) and here's the proof, He says...the works that I do.

Since that was His real claim, and not this fake one they were deliberately trumping up to get rid of Him, they had to put down the stones and clear off.

 

[TonkaTim]

Here's the proof:

Since that was His real claim, and not this fake one they were deliberately trumping up to get rid of Him, they had to put down the stones and clear off.

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

No friend the scriptures show "they" did not "put down the stones and clear off".

When Jesus said "... the Father is in me, and I in him" reconfirming His oneness with the Father, "... they sought to take him.." definately shows they did not "put down the stones and clear off".

Before we can continue this discussion I have to know - Did you intentionally misrepresent the scriptures on this obvious point? Because this blatant & obvious "error" has me rethinking every word you have posted. If you will blatantly lie about events clearly documented in scripture there is no way we can have an honest discussion about the Word. If it was not intentional, how did you interpret "they sought to take him" as "they had to put down the stones and clear off."?

 

[Asyncritus]

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

No friend the scriptures show "they" did not "put down the stones and clear off".

I thank you for elevating me to the rank of 'friend'. That being so, please accept my sincere apologies. I erred there by not reading down far enough into v39. Now I hope we can continue the discussion.

However, you have failed to touch the main point that Jesus made, that Peter made, that the Father approved and revealed: that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Do you accept that?

When Jesus said "... the Father is in me, and I in him" reconfirming His oneness with the Father, "... they sought to take him.." definately shows they did not "put down the stones and clear off".

Before we can continue this discussion I have to know - Did you intentionally misrepresent the scriptures on this obvious point?

See above.

Now as to the 'oneness' of the Father and Jesus. Are you a part of the trinity? That is not as strange as it sounds - because Jesus says so Himself, three times, no less:

No 1.
John 17:11
"...that they may be one, EVEN AS WE ARE"

No 2
John 17:21

"that they may be one; even as thou Father art in me, and I in thee,...

No3
v22 that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me..."

So the 'oneness' does not imply the 'sameness'. It is a oneness, a unity, in purpose, direction and intention, and an absence of fighting and general nastiness. Oneness in love is probably the best way of saying that.

As far as I can tell, neither of us is part of the trinity.

But do you admit that you have missed the main point of His answer to your own question: that Jesus is the Son of God, not God, or God the Son?

Please don't avoid the question, because I will press you for an answer. Here it is again:

Since Jesus, the Father and Peter agree on that point, why do you disagree with them?

And do you accept the full meaning and the implications of John 14.28 which I have quoted several times now?

"My Father is greater than I"

Sincerely your friend,

Asyncritus

 

[Free]

???? Free, do you know any Greek?

[FONT=&quot]
No, which is why I rely on those that do.

[/FONT]

The only assumption I make is that this is the word of God and must be treated as such.

First assumption:

It is impossible for anyone to explain why a large chunk dealing with the creation in Genesis 1 leads off this particular context. There is no connection at all.

Why begin the gospel with a discussion of facts relating to the Creation of the planet, when that had already been done so thoroughly, so long before, and was so well known to his readership? Why would he choose to be so far out of line with the other gospel writers who make no reference to Genesis1 at all?

Why don’t they?

[FONT="]The only sensible reason for his allusions that makes any sense – and I am quite open to any better suggestions here – is that he is introducing the Beginning of the New Creation of God in Christ. Nothing else makes contextual sense.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]If you're actually open to better suggestions, then here is the one that makes that best sense:

John is clearly alluding to Gen 1:1 with "In the beginning." I don't think there would be many scholars, if any, that would dispute that. But there is no "discussion of facts relating to the Creation of the planet." John is here referencing a "point in time" prior to creation.

That none of the other gospel writers refer to Genesis or creation is completely irrelevant. All the gospels start at different points: Matthew with the genealogy and birth of Jesus; Mark with the start of Jesus' ministry (and doesn't even contain a birth narrative or genealogy); Luke with the background of John the Baptist; John with who Jesus is.

They are all inconsistent with where they start, for different reasons. That John doesn't start at the same point is irrelevant. There is absolutely no need to then jump outside of the immediate context of John 1 and start looking for what else John might mean. John 1:1-3 is perfectly self-explanatory.

By arguing that "[FONT="]he is introducing the Beginning of the New Creation of God in Christ," you are changing what John is saying by introducing a meaning into the text which isn't there. [/FONT]John is clearly saying that the Word has existed for eternity past. For him to use en, ("was the Word"), which means "absolute existence" and denotes "action in eternity past," and then supposedly be "introducing the beginning of the new creation," would be contradictory. This can only be a reference to the existence of the Word and God, prior to any creation at all.

This is further supported by verse 3, which requires none of the eisegesis of your position. There is no need to redefine "all things" to be "not everything, just subset of everything," or whatever. "All things" means what it says "all things." And this is perfectly consistent with the simple understanding of verse 1.

If you do that, as I do, then you can come to no other conclusion besides the one that the shema declares.

Of course. No trinitarian would disagree with the Shema.

You haven't read the article carefully enough.

The point being made is that this is the BEGINNING OF THE NEW CREATION OF GOD in Christ. You do know about that, don't you?

Here you have completely ignored what the Greek states and its implications for your position.

That is precisely what I am saying. 'God in nature' is the exact equivalent of 'divine'. And you're in agreement with Moffatt. ‘Yet distinct from God ‘ is equally correct.

If that is what you are saying, then you must necessarily agree that the Trinity is true. If Jesus is God in nature, which he is, then he is equal with the Father.

You have failed to address the meaning of the word pros (=with). Grimm-Thayer have shown that 'with' cannot be correct.

"The preposition πρός, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse." (Vincent's Word Studies)

You have completely ignored the very technical way that John uses the word 'beginning'. Please address the evidence I have adduced instead of ignoring it.

There is no "technical way" that John is using "beginning." It is simply a reference to Gen 1.

You are again ignoring the very clear evidence that 'all things' does not mean 'everything'. But it is being used of the spiritual world - ie the Jewish world at the time .

You're ignoring the evidence again. ALL THINGS does not refer to everything. It refers to a particular subset of ‘everything’. But please re-read the article and answer the point being raised.

You have provided no such evidence that "all things" should be taken as anything but "all things." To say that "it is being used of the spiritual world - ie the Jewish world as the time," is once again, to introduce meaning into the text which is completely unwarranted, and unnecessary for understanding the text. So my argument still stands.

I have shown coherently and in great detail what Paul meant by Col 1. 16. Please re-read the post.

'The only Son' is used so many times of the 'only-begotten'. It is plain that only when the word became flesh that it could be described as Jesus. It wasn't Jesus before on your hypothesis.

The word 'egeneto' is an extremely common word, being derived from 'ginomai', being often translated ‘came to pass’. Such an understanding is very likely if this refers to prophecy about Jesus: IN THE WORD coming to pass..

You are far too taken with the wishful, philosophical meanderings of the theologians,Free. Just where do you get this idea about ‘entering into time’? Not from this passage, that’s for sure.

Yes, from the passage, from the meaning of egeneto, which can mean "to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being." This best fits the context as I am hard pressed to see how "the Word came to pass in flesh and dwelt among us" makes any sense.

Ginomai - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version

I have shown that that is not the case.

You provided yet another "new exposition" which is in itself another work based on incorrect assumptions, and contradicts hundreds of years of exposition by learned men. That really says it all.

I’m afraid this version is nonsensical, and makes no sense whatsoever. It is typical of the consequences of theological misunderstanding.

The only God cannot be at the Father’s side, because the Father is the only God there is. Can you not see the self-contradiction in this translation?

And here is the contradiction in your understanding. On the one hand you agree that the Word is God in nature and that "'God in nature' is the exact equivalent of 'divine'." On the other hand you are now saying that the Father is the only God. But if the Word is God in nature, then the Word is also God.

You cannot say that the Word is in nature God but is not God.

ESV should have had some more sense, and recognised the simple fact that 'monogenees’ which is invariably translated ‘only child, only daughter, only-begotten’ CANNOT POSSIBLY refer to the Father, the one doing the begetting.

That because the ESV isn't using monogenes of the Father; that is your error in understanding that is making it seem that way. The ESV has rightly concluded that the Word, who is in nature God, as you agree, is therefore rightly referred to as God. You have begged the question by presuming that "God" refers only to the Father.

The above exposition completely, and effortlessly, demystifies John 1: 1 in particular. There is no need for convoluted explanations, no invoking of mystical Logos-es, nothing that the veriest babe in Christ cannot comprehend. The only readers John intended to confuse were the opposition: and he, like his Lord, did so vigorously.

No offense, but your 14 or so posts it took to get your interpretation out is probably one of the most convoluted explanations I have ever read. The explanation I have given, which I believe to be that of accepted Christian orthodoxy, or at least very close, is very simple and is self-explanatory.

John is introducing us to the two unified natures of Christ, his divinity and his humanity, which are absolutely necessary for fully understanding his life, ministry, and purpose.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I suppose all things are possible.

But it would be extremely odd if a book whose intention was to show that Jesus was God the Son began and ended with a passage which showed that He was the Son of God - and then completely failed to mention that He was God the Son.

That is a most curious omission, don't you think?

The Jews, who were the first readers of the book did not, could not, and would not believe that He was God the Son. They still don't do so today.

Their reaction when they thought that He was claiming to be God, is a perfect illustration of that.

Therefore, if John's intention was to show that He was God the Son, it would have been essential to state hs case at the outset, or at the conclusion. That was not his intention, and that is proved by the statement that the book was written to show Jesus as the Son of God, and that those who believe that would be saved.

So in sum, and to answer your question, I am saying that it DOES NOT convey that message.

I happen to agree with your assertion that it does not attempt to convey that message. I believe 1 John 1 further emphasized the indended message that Jesus rather than being God is the embodiment of the 'logos' of God. Although this word is translated as 'word', it carries a much deeper meaning for it can be more thoroughly understood as being the reason or intention of owner/distributor of the logos.
So in summary, I currenyly believe this passage was written to emphasize the the reader the Jesus, the Christ is the very personification of God's creative purpose and intent which is life.