JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375

Participant

Quote (Gene @ Sep. 22 2009,09:19)

Thinker………Another false statement , where does it say we are brothers of Jesus (BY) Adoption, is there no end to you Trinitarians adding you personal opinions contrary to scriptures? The only Place Adoption is mentioned is in relation ship to GOD, and even Jesus was adopted this way, Why, because it is (IMPOSSIBLE) for GOD to recreate another (TRUE) GOD. AS Jesus said (FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD> What part of that don't you get thinker?

gene

The scripture says several times that Christ is God's begotten Son. It says several times that we are adopted sons. I thought you said that you let words mean what they say?

thinker

September 21, 2009 at 10:34 pm#146836

Proclaimer

Participant

Here is a snippet of writing I previously wrote in a debate with Isaiah, regarding John 1:1.
(BTW, Isaiah is a self-confessed Trinitarian )
===================================================================

To start, please read the 2 examples below and guess which one is correct:

1)
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was the man

2)
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind, or that the woman is a man in the sense that God made man, male and female, as it is written.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

In other words the word 'man' is used as an attribute or to describe one's nature. It is not used in an identity sense like the other instances of the words 'woman' and 'man' in the above correct example.

But in Isaiah's way of thinking regarding 'God' and the 'Word', he chooses number 1, so he sees it like:

a) In the beginning was the Word    / similarly - In the beginning was the woman,       
b) the Word was with (the) God     /  similarly - the woman was with the man        
c) and the Word was God (himself) /   similarly - and the woman was the man

September 21, 2009 at 10:40 pm#146839

Participant

Hi TT,
Woman is rib of man.
What is your point?

September 21, 2009 at 10:46 pm#146840

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2009,10:24)

Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 22 2009,03:48)

I am totally aware what trinitarians believe. Apparently you have not seen my posts in the past inwhich I have stated that I am not a traditional trinitarian. You evaded my point. The reading of “theos” in John 1:1c as qualitative does no harm to trinitarianism.

Except that we can partake of divine nature and Jesus said “Ye are theos” to those whom he was speaking to.

A qualitative use of “theos” is applied to others outside God himself. Scripture testifies to this.

God in identity is the Father. “Theos/god” qualitatively speaking is used in some instances of men, angels, the son.

So John 1:1 is not a proof verse for the Trinity if you see the last word as qualitative. If it was, then you would have to add some men and angels into the Trinity and then you wouldn't have a Trinity anymore.

If you say that the Word was God as in God in identity, then you do so at the expense of God the Father.

e.g., Obama is the president means that I am not the president because Obama is.
But I could say that many are presedential, but that there is one president.

The Word was (the Most High) God, means that the Father is not because the Word is. Therefore a qualitative view is likely when you view it this way. Even some Trinitarian scholars understand this, though not all.

We do not partake of God's form. There is a difference between form and nature. We partake of the divine nature in reference to His communicable attributes which are love, mercy, patience and kindness and so forth.

But we CANNOT partake of God's form (John 5:37). Jesus alone existed in God's form (Philippians 2).

t8:

Quote

Except that we can partake of divine nature and Jesus said “Ye are theos” to those whom he was speaking to.

You are confused. Men may partake of God's nature in reference to His communicable attributes. They cannot have His form. The word “theos” in reference to men simply means “ruler” or “magistrate.”

thinker

September 22, 2009 at 4:36 am#146889

Proclaimer

Participant

Hi thethinker.

So I am confused and you have posted the above to bring light to the confusion.
OK, let's test your supposition and position.

It is written that we will be like Jesus is and he will call us brothers.

If Jesus is God, then the above couldn't be true because we will be brothers to God and therefore other Gods.

Yet the fused bolded text above is written in scripture.

And it is also written:

Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. And all who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

…it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

We will receive a body that is spiritual and incorruptible. God is spirit and we are his children/sons.

So I have a question seen as how you are here to sort out the confusion and have appointed yourself as the judge in this matter.

If we will inherit a spiritual body, will we still be men/woman/mankind/human?

At the moment our nature is human.

What will we become?

September 22, 2009 at 4:44 am#146891

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Thinker……….Man you just keep getting screwer and screwer , nothing of what you are saying makes since Now the “women was the man”, So you are saying they were not two different people. You point i take it is your trying to say that Jesus and GOD are the same also, so the would mean since we are human beings like Jesus that we and GOD are the same being also right. I know GOD can live in (ALL) and Operate through (ALL) but to say we and Jesus and all man Kind (IS) GOD is completely not scriptural. IMO

gene

September 22, 2009 at 5:53 pm#146962

RokkaMan

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2009,10:34)

To start, please read the 2 examples below and guess which one is correct:

1)
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was the man

2)
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind, or that the woman is a man in the sense that God made man, male and female, as it is written.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

But in Isaiah's way of thinking regarding 'God' and the 'Word', he chooses number 1, so he sees it like:

a) In the beginning was the Word    / similarly - In the beginning was the woman,       
b) the Word was with (the) God     /  similarly - the woman was with the man        
c) and the Word was God (himself) /   similarly - and the woman was the man

Great analysis, you write very well.

But question….

In the beginning was The Word, The Word was with God, and The Word was God.

What is your take on The Word was God.

Is it literally God as in YHWH, or a qualitive God? As in title.

And if the original word was Logos what are the implications then?

Like your president analogy

If I were to say I am president in a sentence…there would have to be an object or reference to fully understand…like if I said…I started a coke company where I have many workers and I am the president….

That sentence wouldn't imply I am the president of the united states, it'd imply, I am the president of the coke company.

So if the reference of John 1:1 states….

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

Can we not conclude the reference would be The Beginning

And that The Word was God in or of The beginning ?

I'd only like t8 to respond to this please. Seems like the most sensible one around here with an unbiased outlook.

September 24, 2009 at 6:17 am#147207

Catholic Apologist

Participant

From the EOB Appendix on John 1:1

JOHN 1:1 – THE WORD WAS {WHAT} GOD {WAS}
Although the majority of modern translations render John 1:1c as “and the
Word was God,” this translation is somewhat problematic and possibly
misleading. As one of the leading scholars on this issue admits:
[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is
being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in
normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the
Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the
Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms,
that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father
nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.
(Murray Harris – Jesus as God, p. 69)
In the words of a non-Trinitarian critic of this translation, “Trinitarians do
not mean what they say and they do not say what they mean.” Moreover,
qualified Greek scholars such as Jason BeDuhn have also taken a public
stand against the traditional translation, going as far as to state that:
Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows
familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (“interlinear”)
translation of the controversial clause would read: “And a god was the
Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would
rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: “And the
Word was a god.” The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar,
from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this
translation, of which “the Word was divine” would be a slightly more
polished variant carrying the same basic meaning. Both of these renderings
are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three
key factors that guide accurate translation. The NASB, NIV, NRSV, and
NAB follow the translation concocted by the KJV translators. This
translation awaits a proper defense, since no obvious one emerges from
Greek grammar, the literary context of John, or the cultural environment
in which John is writing… (Jason BeDuhn – Truth in translation)
This concern has been taken seriously and a number of alternative
translations have been proposed and used in recent versions, including:
(1) The Word was a god or The Word was god (Jannaris, Becker,
DeBuhn)

(2) The Word was divine (Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Temple,
Strachan, Zerwick)
(3) The Word was deity (Dana and Mantey, Perry, Tenney, Fennema)
(4) What God was, the Word was (NEB, REB).
The EOB footnote for this verse explains the difficulty:
VEn avrch/| h=n o` lo,goj( kai. o` lo,goj h=n pro.
j to.
n qeo,
n( kai.
qeo.
j h=
n o`
lo,
gojÅ
This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction
indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense
that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the
Father (God absolutely) or the trinity. The point being made is that he is of
the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he
eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God from
God… True God from True God… homoousion with the Father”
In order to allow the public reader to use the now traditional form “The
Word was God,” the EOB uses parentheses to inform the private reader
that the second theos should be understood in a qualitative, not personal
sense. The liturgical reader also has the option to read the verse as “the
Word was what God was” which is indeed a very accurate translation of
the grammar and intent of the Greek text.
JOHN 1:18 – THE UNIQUELY LOVED SON
John 1:18 presents a double difficulty. The first aspect is that the original
Greek is debated. Several ancient manuscripts read monogenh. j qeo.j (“only-
begotten or unique God”) instead of monogenh. j ui`o.j (“only-begotten or
unique son”). Inasmuch as the Critical Text gives preponderance to the so-
called Alexandrian textual tradition, it adopts qeo.j as the most likely
original reading of John 1:18. This reading is also quoted by Irenaeus (latin
text), Clement (2 out of 4 citations), Origen, Arius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory
of Nyssa, Jerome and Cyril.
On the other hand, Byzantine manuscripts always read monogenh.j ui`o. j
which is therefore the reading found in the Patriarchal Text and the main
text of the EOB. The witnesses supporting this reading are geographically
widespread and it is consistent with Johannine usage (3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
Hence, it is extremely difficult to be certain as to the original reading of
this passage, but it is clear that both monogenh. j qeo.j and monogenh.j ui`o.j
are consistent with John 1:1 and that they do not create any doctrinal
issues.
The second difficulty of John 1:18 is how to properly translate monogenh.j.
The King James version rendered this Greek word as “only begotten” but
extensive research in the usage of monogenh.j seem to indicate that a better

rendition would be “unique” or “only.” Based on various interpretations and
grammatical options, modern scholars and translations have adopted a
variety of renditions, including:
The only-begotten God (NASB)
God, only-begotten (Westcott)
God the only Son (TCNT, NAB1, NIV1973,1978, NRSV)
The only son, God (NAB2)
The divine only Son (Goodspeed)
God the one and only (NIV1984)
The only One, who is the same as God (GNB1966,1971).
For grammatical and theological reasons, the EOB translates monogenh. j
ui`o.n as either “only-begotten son” or “unique son” where monogenh.j is
construed as an adjective qualifying ui`o.j. However, the reading monogenh. j
qeo.j would best be translated as “the only son, who is divine.”
As Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon writes:
God the Father loves uniquely only one Person, that is his Son. The
adjective monogenh.j, with which the Father refers to his Son (Jn 1:14-18;
3:16), does not mean simply the ‘only-begotten’ but also the ‘uniquely loved
one’ (o`
av
gaphto,
j; Mt. 3:17; 12.18; 2 Pet. 1.17; etc.). It is in and through and
because of him that the Father loves all the beings that exist, for he made
them ‘in him’ and ‘for him’ (Col. 1.16-18). (John D. Zizioulas – Communion
and Otherness, p. 73-74)

September 24, 2009 at 7:42 am#147209

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375

Participant

Quote (RokkaMan @ Sep. 23 2009,05:53)

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2009,10:34)

To start, please read the 2 examples below and guess which one is correct:

1)
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was the man

2)
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind, or that the woman is a man in the sense that God made man, male and female, as it is written.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

But in Isaiah's way of thinking regarding 'God' and the 'Word', he chooses number 1, so he sees it like:

a) In the beginning was the Word    / similarly - In the beginning was the woman,       
b) the Word was with (the) God     /  similarly - the woman was with the man        
c) and the Word was God (himself) /   similarly - and the woman was the man

Great analysis, you write very well.

But question….

In the beginning was The Word, The Word was with God, and The Word was God.

What is your take on The Word was God.

Is it literally God as in YHWH, or a qualitive God? As in title.

And if the original word was Logos what are the implications then?

Like your president analogy

That sentence wouldn't imply I am the president of the united states, it'd imply, I am the president of the coke company.

So if the reference of John 1:1 states….

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

Can we not conclude the reference would be The Beginning

And that The Word was God in or of The beginning ?

I'd only like t8 to respond to this please. Seems like the most sensible one around here with an unbiased outlook.

I believe that God is a title. We can say that God is a Family name. We are considered the Sons of God. If not lifteral ons of God then Adopted Sns of God. Jesus being the Word that became flesh in verse 14. He is our older Brother.
Peace and Love Irene

September 24, 2009 at 7:59 am#147211

Participant

CA posted:

Quote

The Word is not God in the sense
that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the
Father (God absolutely) or the trinity. The point being made is that he is of
the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he
eternally exists.

CA,
Thanks for the info you posted above. I believe that the translation, “And what God was the Word was” is the best. The Word was indeed of the same uncreated nature as God. Verse 3 EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY says that “not one thing came into existence without Him that has come into existence.”

thanks again,
thinker

September 24, 2009 at 8:08 am#147212

Participant

Hi TT,
Are you best equipped to make such decisions if you think angels are God?

September 24, 2009 at 8:17 am#147213

Participant

Irene said:

Quote

We can say that God is a Family name.

Hi Irene,
You are closer to truth. Once you realize that the name YHWH is also a “family name” you will be right on. Moses called the Messenger of YHWH by the name YHWH in Genesis 16. He must have been YHWH for He promised Hagar that He would multiply Ishmael's seed. Trinitarians believe that the Messenger of YHWH was Christ.

And Christ is called “YHWH our righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6).

“And His name shall be called 'YHWH our righteousness.' “

It clearly says that YHWH is “His name”. If you can say that God is a “family name” then you should have no problem saying that YHWH also is a family name.

thinker

September 24, 2009 at 8:17 am#147214

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 24 2009,19:59)

CA posted:

Quote

thanks again,
thinker

So are you going to deny vese 14 were it says that the Word became flesh? And if so, what does that mean? God became flesh? The flesh is jesus is it not? I believe so!!!!
Irene
Irene

September 24, 2009 at 8:20 am#147215

Participant

Quote (Gene @ Sep. 22 2009,16:44)

gene

September 24, 2009 at 8:23 am#147217

Participant

Irene said:

Quote

So are you going to deny vese 14 were it says that the Word became flesh? And if so, what does that mean?

Irene,
Yes God became flesh. You know that this is the Christian doctrine of the incarnation. You yourself have said that God can do anything He wants (except have sex with Himself as Kathi thinks).

thinker

September 24, 2009 at 8:29 am#147218

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 24 2009,20:23)

Irene said:

Quote

So are you going to deny vese 14 were it says that the Word became flesh? And if so, what does that mean?

Irene,
Yes God became flesh. You know that this is the Christian doctrine of the incarnation. You yourself have said that God can do anything He wants (except have sex with Himself as Kathi thinks).

thinker

But you think in the way that God is a trinity which I don't believe. If it is a title then it is Jesus who became flesh and the Word being Jesus. Is that what you believe also?
I thought that you believe in the trinity?
Irene

September 24, 2009 at 8:30 am#147219

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 24 2009,20:17)

Irene said:

Quote

We can say that God is a Family name.

And Christ is called “YHWH our righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6).

“And His name shall be called 'YHWH our righteousness.' “

It clearly says that YHWH is “His name”. If you can say that God is a “family name” then you should have no problem saying that YHWH also is a family name.

thinker

Hi TT,
So I AM WHO AM is a family name?
Now you have a family god with angels included.
There is no end to your bizarre and utterly blighted thoughts?

September 24, 2009 at 9:08 am#147221

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 24 2009,20:30)

Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 24 2009,20:17)

Irene said:

Quote

We can say that God is a Family name.

And Christ is called “YHWH our righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6).

“And His name shall be called 'YHWH our righteousness.' “

It clearly says that YHWH is “His name”. If you can say that God is a “family name” then you should have no problem saying that YHWH also is a family name.

thinker

Hi TT,
So I AM WHO AM is a family name?
Now you have a family god with angels included.
There is no end to your bizarre and utterly blighted thoughts?

Heh Nick I said that too. Are we not the Sons of God? If that is so what does not make, if not a Family. That idea comes from Mr, Armstrong. In fact whe had a Festival which is listed in Lev. The Feast of Tabernacle. I still have the Music that we had for that Feast. We are Famliy, We are Family. If right or wrong it was nice at the time. We learned a lot in that time. God called us out of the Catholic Church into the W,W, Church of God, where we really learned to read the Bible. It was good for us in that sense. Since that time we have learned so much. God has been good to us. We now worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. He has revealed the preexsisting doctrine to us, and the New covenant in grace.
Romans 6: 14 For sin shall not have dominion over us, you are not under law but under grace.
Irene

September 24, 2009 at 9:16 am#147222

Participant

Hi Irene,
God is not family but He has a family.[eph3.14]

September 24, 2009 at 9:49 am#147223