JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[GeneBalthrop]

To All ……….God and his word are one and the same thing, just as you and your words are. Just that simple. John wrote John 1:1 as he understood it, If He wanted the word to mean Jesus he would obviously have written the name Jesus there instead of the word ,word.  There is no trick meaning to what he wrote, as Trinitarians and Preexistence's would like us to believe. There is no need to force the text to say what in fact it is not saying. In the beginning, the word was with God, and the word “WAS” God.  

It is so hard to believe that such a simple scripture can be the source of so much confusion and complete “religious” belief systems can hinge on on such a simple text, when yo have the whole bible that shows God and his word are the same thing, they are  Spirit and are Life. There is One “GOD” and ONE “MEDIATOR” between That “ONE GOD” and Man, the “MAN” Jesus Christ. How much more simpler can you Get then that.

We need to believe what Jesus said, that there is, “ONLY ONE “TRUE” GOD , and what it says in 1 Cor 8:4…>  we know that there is no idol in the world and that there is “NO” GOD, but “ONE” GET IT?. ONE and “ONLY” ONE, GOD.
not to even mention what God the Father Said himself over and over about the existences of other God's.

Fact is most “religious” People have been based there beliefs derived from there past associations with false teachers and churches, who have corrupted the word of God and indoctrinated them, with their false teachings. Any one who is of the Truth Knows That there is, “ONLY” “ONE” TRUE GOD, all other so-called God are false Gods.  IMO

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,16:49)

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 18 2013,06:43) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 17 2013,15:02) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 17 2013,06:12) Still no answer kerwin? Journey, I have nothing that I have not answered for you.  You have not answered and stated whether or not you believe God is divine and his word is divine. and what version is that?what version that says GOD IS LIKE HIS WORD? Jammin, Right now the conversation is stalled until you choose to either not respond or to answer the questions I asked.

The truth is you cant give a version that says God is like his word. That is only your imagination in jn1:1 . Poor kerwin.

[Lightenup]

David,
Is the Father a god?
Wouldn't 'the God' be 'a god?'
If so, reading the verse, John 1:1c as 'a god' really doesn't tell us that a god who may be spoken about in 1c is not the God. The article is absent when the scripture is speaking about 'the God' many times. The Greek word 'theos' is written with the article at times and the context is speaking of Jesus, and more than once too. The name Jehovah is identified as Jesus also.

Whether a theos or elohim is identified as Jehovah should really be the quest.
The absence of the article does not make a clear case one way or the other.

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ Nov. 18 2013,23:02)

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,16:49) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 18 2013,06:43) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 17 2013,15:02) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 17 2013,06:12) Still no answer kerwin? Journey, I have nothing that I have not answered for you.  You have not answered and stated whether or not you believe God is divine and his word is divine. and what version is that?what version that says GOD IS LIKE HIS WORD? Jammin, Right now the conversation is stalled until you choose to either not respond or to answer the questions I asked. The truth is you cant give a version that says God is like his word. That is only your imagination in jn1:1 . Poor kerwin.

Jammin,

I already did as you requested and you have failed to prove that the clause “the word is God” does not mean the word and God share the characteristic of being divine. You are not even willing to admit that both God and his word are divine even though I have asked you several times. You are not very skilled at discussing things. Do some research and get you ducks in a row. I am sure you have the ability if you are courageous enough to strive for it. I hope you have the heart.

[GeneBalthrop]

Jammin………..Are you really so ignorant that you don't know a Man or being is exactly ask his words are. Why do you think scriptures said man shall give an account of “EVERY Word he has spoken. If a persons word is not Him then why should he be held accountable to his words at all. So now you think God and His words are not the same , So when God say something, we shouldn't believe what he says, because his words are not him right. Jammin God and his word are one and the same and when we a line with those words we become One with him just as Jesus did. That is why Jesus said me and my father are one, (in agreement that is), GET IT?

peace and love to you and yours………………………..gene

[terraricca]

k

Quote

I already did as you requested and you have failed to prove that the clause “the word is God”

THE WORD IS NOT GOD ;BUT IS “OF ” GOD ;WE ALL HAVE WORDS TO SPEAK BUT THEY ARE “OF US INDIVIDUALLY ,” NO ONE IS HIS WORDS ;BUT THE WORDS COMES OUT OF OUR MOUTH WHAT IS THE INSTRUMENT OF DOING SO,AND SO BECOME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ,BUT THEY ARE NOT US NOR GOD ,BUT CAME OUT OF US

[Lightenup]

Pierre,
You ought to study the Targums to find out what the Jews thought of as “the Word of the LORD.” The 'Word' meant something significant to the OT Israelites and they equated the “Word of the LORD” with the LORD when He appeared or spoke to humans.

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 19 2013,05:28)

Pierre, You ought to study the Targums to find out what the Jews thought of as “the Word of the LORD.” The 'Word' meant something significant to the OT Israelites and they equated the “Word of the LORD” with the LORD when He appeared or spoke to humans.

Kathy

NO.I do not need the teachings of men ,

and what is in scriptures is fine so tell me my answer ;if you cannot well that means I was right ,right

[david]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,17:11)

Quote (david @ Nov. 18 2013,00:49) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,02:50) David, Quote People really don't like talking about this, which is highly weird, given that the very first chance ANYONE had who could put an indefinite article in John 1:1, they did!  They did this at a time when koine Greek was still spoken!  They did this with a language based on the Greek alphabet. Pure speculation.   We do not even no which language or languages the individual books of the New Testament were written in, much less if a particular manuscript of Coptic is the first chance that an indefinite article can be inserted in.  We do know that there were mere men who wrote manuscripts that were altered from true.  I am not even sure all Coptic manuscripts agree.  As it sits I have better tools for dealing with Koine Greek and English than coptic though even they fall short of being the perfect number of tools or quality of the tools. Which part of my statement was “pure speculation”? That it was the first language where a choice (of god or “a god”) had to be made? Ok, fine, ITS THE FIRST MOMENT THAT WE KNOW OF where translators had to choose to either insert the indefinite article or not insert it.   If you know of any earlier languages that had an indefinite article, where they translated the bible, please state it.   So, how is it pure speculation? David, That is better since it is like a Forth Century manuscript.  There may be earlier version but they are versions that may have only ever has one copy.   I looked into Coptic, of which there are three language types, I can remember which was one was used but I do know that the indefinite may or may not become an English indefinite.  What you have in both Greek and Coptic is more  like the word is with the theos and the word is theos or the word is the theos and the word is a theos. If you look at Trinitaian argument against the common translation of John 1:1 then the word cannot literally be God because the Trinitarian translation of the word theos is either “the Godhead” or “the Father” and Trinitarians do not believe the word is either “the Godhead” or “the Father”.  Those Trinitarians who accept this argument are no opposed to “a god” and view it as support of their Christology. Note: the Trinitarians have other definitions but none of which they would be relevant to John 1:1.

“That is better since it is like a Forth Century manuscript. There may be earlier version but they are versions that may have only ever has one copy. “–kerwin

Kerwin, I'm not sure you seem to understand why sahedic Coptic is even interesting. Sure, there were manuscripts before the Coptic ones.

But which of those languages (like English) have an indefinite article?
NONE.

I do understand that even having the “a” in there doesn't necessarily mean they meant “a god', but may have meant something more like divine or godlike.
All we know is that they, who were translating their John 1:1 did so while koine Greek was still spoken, and the ones doing the translating would have been quite familiar with Greek of that time. They based their own alphabet on it, adding a few letters.

The first people we know of who had the opportunity to do so, had an “a” in there. Maybe it was a mistake on their part, like a copying mistake, since they did make some mistakes, but mathematically, that is remote.

[david]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 19 2013,04:43)

David, Is the Father a god? Wouldn't 'the God' be 'a god?' If so, reading the verse, John 1:1c as 'a god' really doesn't tell us that a god who may be spoken about in 1c is not the God. The article is absent when the scripture is speaking about 'the God' many times. The Greek word 'theos' is written with the article at times and the context is speaking of Jesus, and more than once too. The name Jehovah is identified as Jesus also. Whether a theos or elohim is identified as Jehovah should really be the quest. The absence of the article does not make a clear case one way or the other.

LU,

Howdie

I agree with almost everything you day. It's not clear. It's only clear once you establish an outside bias one way or the other, and then it seems clear.

I do t agree that the nam Jehovah is identified as Jesus also, but I don't really feel like going off on that discussion here.

[kerwin]

David.

Your wrote:

Quote

But which of those languages (like English) have an indefinite article? NONE.   I do understand that even having the “a” in there doesn't necessarily mean they meant “a god', but may have meant something more like divine or godlike.   All we know is that they, who were translating their John 1:1 did so while koine Greek was still spoken, and the ones doing the translating would have been quite familiar with Greek of that time.  They based their own alphabet on it, adding a few letters.   The first people we know of who had the opportunity to do so, had an “a” in there.  Maybe it was a mistake on their part, like a copying mistake, since they did make some mistakes, but mathematically, that is remote

I don't know but I do know that it is unsound to use the word “all” unless you know “all” languages used during that age.  With one example it is more difficult to test if the evidence is sound.  So according to your sources of all the languages they know only this Coptic version has the indefinite article to use and they use it.  

A certain scholar has recently advanced the hypothesis that the indefinite article as used in John 1:1 on this Coptic language translation has a “qualitative meaning” as if saying the word was a (one) theos.

Quote

In a recent issue of The Journal of Theological Studies Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti reason that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation, of John 1:1, has a qualitative meaning. Many such occurrences for qualitative nouns are identified in the Coptic New Testament, including 1 John 1:5 and 1 John 4:8. Moreover the indefinite article is used to refer to God in Deuteronomy 4:31 and Malachi 2:10.

I prefer the translation the word was divine or the word was godly even though I suspicion “was” is lousy translation of the Koine Greek verb. From what little I have heard it is the best word to translate the Koine Greek word to.  The inclusion of indefinite does not make a difference to me as I perceive the word as being a possession of God's and John being a poet.

[carmel]

kerwin,Nov. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

I clearly do not view humanity as only physical substance.   I doubt very much that the Spirit is inside a believer's natural soul.

Kerwin,

Explanation ….

READ THIS REVELATION:

People cannot understand the relationship between body, soul and spirit, which makes it difficult to explain to them the working of the spirit. The spirit is in opposition to the body, whereas the soul finds itself between both, thus it effectively has to side with either the body or the spirit but it can never pay attention to both. In the beginning of embodiment as a human being the soul is totally attached to the body. Hence it endeavours to fulfil the body's every desire, that is to say thought, feeling and will. The human soul are wholly focussed on the body which, still consisting of matter itself, also seeks to unite with matter. Thus the person will long for material possessions because they epitomise the body's satisfaction. Therefore the spirit will not come into its own, the soul ignores the spirit's demands, the spirit cannot find acceptance because the body is still stronger and completely occupies the soul, thus dominating its thoughts and aspirations.

However, the soul can also recognise the worthlessness of earthly things, it can consider its bodily wishes to be unimportant, it can demand more of earthly life than mere material goods, then the spirit comes into its own,Then it will express itself and be listened to by the soul. The soul will start to move in a different direction, it will no longer ask for the body but strive for spiritual values. It will accept being taught, that is, it shall willingly accept what the spirit conveys. Indeed, it will feel happy and pay consistently less attention to the body, or it will try to incline the body to do what the spirit demands of the soul …. to renounce earthly matter in exchange for spiritual knowledge. Now the spirit will be victorious over the body. Both spirit and body try to win the soul for themselves. And as soon as the spirit has succeeded in displacing the desires of the body, it is the stronger ….

But what is meant by spirit? The spirit is the Divine in the human being;it is that which identifies the human being as God's living creation, the spirit is the bond which connects the human being to the eternal Father- Spirit.

It is the human being's realisation that he will always be in contact with the Father of eternity. The human being only recognises himself as God's living creation when the spirit becomes active, until then he will merely be conscious of himself as a living being who wants whatever life has to offer. But once the human being recognises himself, the world will no longer mean anything to him. Then he will search for higher values, then his thoughts will be directed towards the  spiritual kingdom, then he will try to make contact with the One Who gave him life, then his thoughts will be right and his  wishes and actions in accordance with divine will. Then the spirit of God will be working within the person. The soul subsequently will give itself to the spirit to be guided and taught so that body, soul and spirit unite at last and seek unity with God, because the human being's spirit constantly strives towards the Father-Spirit to Whom he is, and remains,
inseparably joined for eternity THE HOLY SPIRIT!

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[terraricca]

CHARLES

there was nothing wrong in God creating men,the problem lays into the choices he made ,taking the right choice would have taken all humanity in a different direction ,but now we are here with the problems we know ,and it is because men are still looking for making the choices that kills them and destroyed the earth ;all of God's creation,

men his flesh ,and soul ;the fact that he as to breath through his nostrils this is the way he was created just like all the mammals ,

but his soul as the spirit ,what can stop him from doing what is wrong

[kerwin]

Charles,

According to Scripture humanity first became a living soul when the breath of life entered his body, Genesis 2:7.  It also tells us that even if the body dies the soul survives for when Rebecca died he soul left he body, Genesis 35:18.  Paul tells us that without our body we are naked and Rebecca's soul was without her body, 2 Corinthians 5:1-3.  Jesus tells us that those that pant for righteousness will receive it, Matthew 5:6,  but those who instead love darkness will not come into the light, John 3:19-21.  It is the soul that pants for God, Psalm 42:1.

About the Spirit it is written that those who walk by the Spirit have received the righteousness their soul pants for, Galatians 5:22-25.  While those who instead choose to walk by the anti-Spirit fall short of God's glory, Galatians 5:17-21.  It is the soul and body that chooses to walk either by the Spirit or by the Anti-Spirit.

A human is body and soul and a human walks by a spirit.

[Lightenup]

Quote (david @ Nov. 18 2013,19:50)

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 19 2013,04:43) David, Is the Father a god? Wouldn't 'the God' be 'a god?' If so, reading the verse, John 1:1c as 'a god' really doesn't tell us that a god who may be spoken about in 1c is not the God. The article is absent when the scripture is speaking about 'the God' many times. The Greek word 'theos' is written with the article at times and the context is speaking of Jesus, and more than once too. The name Jehovah is identified as Jesus also. Whether a theos or elohim is identified as Jehovah should really be the quest. The absence of the article does not make a clear case one way or the other. LU, Howdie I agree with almost everything you day.  It's not clear.  It's only clear once you establish an outside bias one way or the other, and then it seems clear. I do t agree that the nam Jehovah is identified as Jesus also, but I don't really feel like going off on that discussion here.

Howdie David.

I'm glad we agree on that.

For the rest, you can take that up here, again, if you are up to it…

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….0;st=40

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2013,18:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 19 2013,05:28) Pierre, You ought to study the Targums to find out what the Jews thought of as “the Word of the LORD.” The 'Word' meant something significant to the OT Israelites and they equated the “Word of the LORD” with the LORD when He appeared or spoke to humans. Kathy NO.I do not need the teachings of men , and what is in scriptures is fine so tell me my answer ;if you cannot well that means I was right ,right

John wrote to the Jews about the Word in a way that they could understand. It helps to know what they understood of 'the Word' and that understanding is found in their Targums. The Targums are not necessarily inspired but they do give the Jewish understanding of what was inspired and in that way, it helps explain John 1:1 and 'the Word.'

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 20 2013,01:55)

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2013,18:35) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 19 2013,05:28) Pierre, You ought to study the Targums to find out what the Jews thought of as “the Word of the LORD.” The 'Word' meant something significant to the OT Israelites and they equated the “Word of the LORD” with the LORD when He appeared or spoke to humans. Kathy NO.I do not need the teachings of men , and what is in scriptures is fine so tell me my answer ;if you cannot well that means I was right ,right John wrote to the Jews about the Word in a way that they could understand. It helps to know what they understood of 'the Word' and that understanding is found in their Targums. The Targums are not necessarily inspired but they do give the Jewish understanding of what was inspired and in that way, it helps explain John 1:1 and 'the Word.'

Kathy

the gospel account that John the apostle gives, is given to all gentiles and Jew alike , mainly addressed to those that seeks God and his righteousness ,all true believers now in their hearts that John in 1;1 is talking about Christ being the WORD ;just as it talks about Christ in verse 14-18,and the witnessing of John the baptist ,in 29-34,

and I do not mention the many other scriptures like Rev;19;13

the rejection of Christ preexistence is equal to rejecting his sacrifice ;because if Christ was not the only son (THE WORD”) OF God then he would not have come from the father and he could not have seen the father as he says ,and he could not save anyone of us not even his own live ,or pay the ransom to God ,according to scriptures ;

Ps 49:7 No man can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for him—
Ps 49:8 the ransom for a life is costly,
no payment is ever enough—
Ps 49:9 that he should live on forever
and not see decay.

but then who can redeem us

Isa 49:8 This is what the LORD says:
“In the time of my favor I will answer you,
and in the day of salvation I will help you;
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people,
to restore the land
and to reassign its desolate inheritances,
Isa 49:9 to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’
and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’

Isa 52:3 For this is what the LORD says:
“You were sold for nothing,
and without money you will be redeemed.”

[mikeboll64]

Quote (942767 @ Nov. 17 2013,13:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 07 2013,09:25) Does John 1:14 tell us that THE WORD made his dwelling among us and was full of grace and truth?  YES or NO? No, Mike, it does not state that. Love in Christ, Marty

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Hmmmm…………. Then what DOES it say, Marty?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,15:24)

Jammin, I already did as you requested and you have failed to prove that the clause “the word is God” does not mean the word and God share the characteristic of being divine.

Kerwin,

What if it said, “and the Word was Abraham Lincoln”?

Would you believe that the Word actually WAS Abraham Lincoln – as was clearly stated?  Or would you pretend that the words, and the Word WAS Abraham Lincoln” only meant that the word “wore a top hat like Abraham Lincoln”?

Because that's what you're doing here.  You're PRETENDING that  “x WAS y” really means “x WAS LIKE y”, right? As if the word “WAS” really means “WAS LIKE”, or “SHARED ATTRIBUTES WITH”, right?

Perhaps you could show an example where someone is said to BE a particular entity, but it really means that they are merely LIKE that other entity.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 18 2013,17:28)

Pierre, You ought to study the Targums to find out what the Jews thought of as “the Word of the LORD.” The 'Word' meant something significant to the OT Israelites and they equated the “Word of the LORD” with the LORD when He appeared or spoke to humans.

Kathi,

There are SO MANY times that kind of language is used in the OT. Here's one of them:

Esther 3:15 NET ©
The messengers scurried forth with the king’s order.

The bolded words are actually, “with the word of the king”.

Should we, being intelligent people, believe that these messengers were carrying the literal words of the king in a box or something? Should we believe the word of the king was a living person, who went along with the messengers?

If not, then why should we believe “the word of YHWH” means anything other than “the word of the king” in the above verse?

Too many people adding too much crap into the scriptures.

[Author]

Posts