- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 25 2007,18:22) By the way, Isaiah – I see that you are outnumbered here 3 to 1, and I would like to thank you for answering questions thoughtfully and with a kind tone. Of course we are all a part of the body of Christ, and so hopefully none of us feels “outnumbered.” However, you know what I mean. 
I'm okay with being outnumbered.Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,15:01) Yes. The “Word/Logos” can be interpreted as being a plan or literal word of God. Just because the majority of Christians interpret John 1:1 as saying the Word is a person, doesn't mean it's true. Besides, read what you wrote – “the plan and will of God were not with God in the beginning.” Of course they were! If God's plan was not with him, how did anything come into being?
Hi not3in1,Well I have been away for a while and just returned. I am going to really stick my neck out here. There are some here who will love to chop it off I am sure. I am not a teacher, so I have no interest in trying to defend my belief. But I will give my reason for why I disagree with popular interpretations of John 1. I admit that I could be mistaken just as easily as others could be, and welcome comments from those who earnestly want to help me. But I will not argue my understanding with any body. I have no interest in changing the mind of anyone else.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jn 1:1
The same was in the beginning with God. Jn 1:2
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Jn 1:3
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Jn 1;4
I believe that John tried to make sure that no one could misinterpret
What he was trying to say, but people still found a way to turn it completely around. I don’t think that Jesus was even eluded to until Jn 1:4.
Jesus was not the logos. The logos was the plan, thoughts the reasoning of God.
And this logos was with God in the beginning and this logos was God. Through this logos God created everything in the beginning.How else could John describe God. God was not like one of the Greek gods that you could look at or make statues of. He just existed as spirit, and He had a plan through which He created everything.
Then in Jn 1:4 it says that in Him, still referring to God, was life, and the life was the light of men.
That life, that light of men that was in God was in fact Jesus. Obviously Jesus is referred to as the light many more times in scriptures.
If the logos was Jesus why would John say that within him was life that was the light of men?John came to bear witness to the light that was Jesus.
Jn 1:9 That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Jn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Jn 1:10 does not insinuate that Jesus created the universe or everything in it. The cosmos that was made by Him was the system, or harmonious group, that we now call Christianity or followers of Christ. Proof of this interpretation comes later in Jn 1:29 when the same word cosmos is used by John and means only followers of Christ.
Jn 1:14 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.
And God made His plan and reasoning into flesh in the person of Jesus, to dwell among us full of grace and truth.
I have not changed the translation of the scriptures at all. I merely interpret that translation differently. I see these scriptures without the bias of Trinitarian thinking, or what theologians tell me I should think. I see one God almighty, who had a plan that He could bring into existence by merely speaking it. Within this plan was His son Jesus, the light of men, who He sent to not only show us His glory, but to be the path for us to salvation from ourselves.
May God help us all to understand His will.
Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ June 26 2007,01:58) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 19 2007,15:01) Yes. The “Word/Logos” can be interpreted as being a plan or literal word of God. Just because the majority of Christians interpret John 1:1 as saying the Word is a person, doesn't mean it's true. Besides, read what you wrote – “the plan and will of God were not with God in the beginning.” Of course they were! If God's plan was not with him, how did anything come into being?
Hi not3in1,Well I have been away for a while and just returned. I am going to really stick my neck out here. There are some here who will love to chop it off I am sure. I am not a teacher, so I have no interest in trying to defend my belief. But I will give my reason for why I disagree with popular interpretations of John 1. I admit that I could be mistaken just as easily as others could be, and welcome comments from those who earnestly want to help me. But I will not argue my understanding with any body. I have no interest in changing the mind of anyone else.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jn 1:1
The same was in the beginning with God. Jn 1:2
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Jn 1:3
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Jn 1;4
I believe that John tried to make sure that no one could misinterpret
What he was trying to say, but people still found a way to turn it completely around. I don’t think that Jesus was even eluded to until Jn 1:4.
Jesus was not the logos. The logos was the plan, thoughts the reasoning of God.
And this logos was with God in the beginning and this logos was God. Through this logos God created everything in the beginning.How else could John describe God. God was not like one of the Greek gods that you could look at or make statues of. He just existed as spirit, and He had a plan through which He created everything.
Then in Jn 1:4 it says that in Him, still referring to God, was life, and the life was the light of men.
That life, that light of men that was in God was in fact Jesus. Obviously Jesus is referred to as the light many more times in scriptures.
If the logos was Jesus why would John say that within him was life that was the light of men?John came to bear witness to the light that was Jesus.
Jn 1:9 That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Jn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Jn 1:10 does not insinuate that Jesus created the universe or everything in it. The cosmos that was made by Him was the system, or harmonious group, that we now call Christianity or followers of Christ. Proof of this interpretation comes later in Jn 1:29 when the same word cosmos is used by John and means only followers of Christ.
Jn 1:14 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.
And God made His plan and reasoning into flesh in the person of Jesus, to dwell among us full of grace and truth.
I have not changed the translation of the scriptures at all. I merely interpret that translation differently. I see these scriptures without the bias of Trinitarian thinking, or what theologians tell me I should think. I see one God almighty, who had a plan that He could bring into existence by merely speaking it. Within this plan was His son Jesus, the light of men, who He sent to not only show us His glory, but to be the path for us to salvation from ourselves.
May God help us all to understand His will.
Tim
Amen Tim!isa1:18 you said you doughted the Image of Jesus being God could be the man of sin. you base it on 5:23 of John honoring someone like the one who sent him does not make them the same as the one who sent him.
John 5:24-30 clearfies it ..most assuredly i say to you he who hears my words and believes in Him who sent me has everlastion life and shall not come into judgement but has passed from death to life.
Jesus words were about the one who sent him not about himself.
John5:26> for as the fathers has life in Himself He has (GRANTED) the son to have life in himself and has (GIVEN) him authority to execute judgement also (BECAUSE) he is sone of man.
it sounds to me everthing Jesus has comes from the Father who is the only true God.
John 5:30> I can of myself do (NOTHING) as I hear I judge and My Judgement is righteous (why)> (BECAUSE) i do not seek (MY OWN) will but the will the Father who sent me.
so Jesus can do nothing of himself, hardly the words of a GOD.and dosen't say God does all thing after the council of (HIS OWN WILL)
1sa 1:18 these scriptures show the true power and true authority lies. its with the Father and Jesus has only what God gives Him. what more do you need. please reconcider your pisition. may God grant you the understanding. your friend Gene
Hi Tim4,
You say
“The logos was the plan, thoughts the reasoning of God.
And this logos was with God in the beginning and this logos was God.”So you really mean the logos was IN GOD?
God uses the term WORD in other ways in scripture.
Is 45
Isaiah 45:23
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.That word is said to have proceeded or gone forth from the mouth of God.
It has been expressed as words always are.
But thoughts and plans are within.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 25 2007,19:15) Funnily enough, you never see trinitarians here bring into question the integrity of the scriptures. We generally affirm that the message in the text has been preserved. That is not to say that all translations are good ones. Footnotes are interesting, but you shouldn't build doctrine on them, right?
You would call into question certain translations that do not fall into line with your theology. For instance, if we only had one version of the Bible and it happen to be the one where a margin note was the prefered text, then I'm sure you would have issue with it. But because most of the translations are filtered by Trinitarian scholarly work, you wouldn't need to raise issue – of course.History tells us that the creeds were put into force by the sword. There are even antiquity works (I'd have to dig to find them although I know they exist for I have read them in my travels), that tell us there were bishops who DID NOT AGREE with the Trinitarian equation that came out of those various councils. These creeds were part of the base and foundation that our translations were built upon, were they not? So then we can see where bias has made us search the scriptures and footnotes for truth……
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 26 2007,07:30) Hi Tim4,
You say
“The logos was the plan, thoughts the reasoning of God.
And this logos was with God in the beginning and this logos was God.”So you really mean the logos was IN GOD?
God uses the term WORD in other ways in scripture.
Is 45
Isaiah 45:23
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.That word is said to have proceeded or gone forth from the mouth of God.
It has been expressed as words always are.
But thoughts and plans are within.
However………..the word that God spoke was indeed part of God before it left his lips!Quote (TimothyVI @ June 26 2007,01:58) Jn 1:14 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. And God made His plan and reasoning into flesh in the person of Jesus, to dwell among us full of grace and truth.
I have not changed the translation of the scriptures at all. I merely interpret that translation differently. I see these scriptures without the bias of Trinitarian thinking, or what theologians tell me I should think. I see one God almighty, who had a plan that He could bring into existence by merely speaking it. Within this plan was His son Jesus, the light of men, who He sent to not only show us His glory, but to be the path for us to salvation from ourselves.
May God help us all to understand His will.
Tim
Amen, Tim!Thank you for putting your neck on the line. You know, I believe that we become closer to God by sharing what we know. I believe that there is even benefit in arguing what we know of God……it helps sift out any error that we might be believing; that is, if we remain teachable.
I have come to see that everyone here on this board loves God. Any correction that I receive from others (read: the chopping off of ones head…ha), I take seriously and ponder what is offered. What do we have to lose but pride? Being wrong isn't the worst thing that I can imagine. Missing something of God would be tragic.
So I encourage you to keep putting yourself out there….you have a lot of good things to share, brother.
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 26 2007,08:32) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 26 2007,07:30) Hi Tim4,
You say
“The logos was the plan, thoughts the reasoning of God.
And this logos was with God in the beginning and this logos was God.”So you really mean the logos was IN GOD?
God uses the term WORD in other ways in scripture.
Is 45
Isaiah 45:23
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.That word is said to have proceeded or gone forth from the mouth of God.
It has been expressed as words always are.
But thoughts and plans are within.
However………..the word that God spoke was indeed part of God before it left his lips!
Hi not3,
He was begotten from God.
Sons are not ever part of their father.
They have a life and a mind and a will of their own.
The Word proceeded forth AND came from his Father God.Jn 8
” 42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 26 2007,08:51) Sons are not ever part of their father.
As you know, I strongly disagree with you here.Before they become your sons – the potential for them is a part of YOU. They “come from” YOU. Just as Jesus “came from” his Father.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 26 2007,09:02) Hi not3,
You keep forgetting the contribution of half of man from woman.
It's actually at the forefront of my mind, and the reason behind many of my posts.What I am trying to say is that the scriptures can say that Jesus “came from God” because God is Jesus' true Father.
God is in heaven (Jesus came from there).
Mary is on earth (Jesus also came from here).However, Jesus' ultimate origin is with his Father who is the “originator” and the “source.”
Hi not3,
He is physically the Son of God.
Scripture says he proceeded from and came from God.
I think monogenes rather says he derived directly from God before he cameQuote (Nick Hassan @ June 26 2007,07:30) Hi Tim4,
You saySo you really mean the logos was IN GOD?
Hi Nick,I suppose you could say that the logos was in God.
John said that the logos was with God and God was the logos.I think that John meant that in the beginning was this plan for creation. This plan was god's plan and was God.
If God had not initiated his plan for creation, of what would He be God?
Tim
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 26 2007,07:30) Hi Tim4,
You say
God uses the term WORD in other ways in scripture.Is 45
Isaiah 45:23
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.That word is said to have proceeded or gone forth from the mouth of God.
It has been expressed as words always are.
But thoughts and plans are within.
Hi Nick,You are correct. But in Isaiah 45:23 the word is the Hebrew word daba which means literally a spoken word.
The Greek word logos means so much more than that. In fact our translation “word” does not give a true meaning to the word logos.
“The word is said to have proceeded or gone forth from the mouth of God”
That is why His plan, which was within, is being expressed in a much different way. God is creating mankind in His image. It is an ongoing process.Tim
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 26 2007,11:19) Hi Tim4,
The Word was with God in the beginning.
In the beginning of what?Tim
timothy v1> if we just take the text for what it say's without capitalizing the word (word) and making it a person instead reduce it to it's simplest form (logos) which means intellengent utterance that's all. in other words intellegence was with God and intellegance utterance was God. we all know what intellegance is and utter is to bring forth. that's not difficult to understand . this whole spin on the word (word 0 was done by trentarian idology and they were able to pull it of because all original greek words were written with capital letters, so the translators who wanted to make the word (WORD) simply left it in captial letter where ever they wanted too.
and another thing a word can never (become flesh) the word became flesh, should be read came to be in flesh . Jesus spoke God's word's to us . but Jesus never became God.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 26 2007,12:31) timothy v1> if we just take the text for what it say's without capitalizing the word (word) and making it a person instead reduce it to it's simplest form (logos) which means intellengent utterance that's all. in other words intellegence was with God and intellegance utterance was God. we all know what intellegance is and utter is to bring forth. that's not difficult to understand . this whole spin on the word (word 0 was done by trentarian idology and they were able to pull it of because all original greek words were written with capital letters, so the translators who wanted to make the word (WORD) simply left it in captial letter where ever they wanted too. and another thing a word can never (become flesh) the word became flesh, should be read came to be in flesh . Jesus spoke God's word's to us . but Jesus never became God.
Thanks Gene,
I agree that word should not have been capitalized, and should not have been interpreted to be another being.A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This was the first Greek use of the word logos. Since that was the original meaning of the word, why would that not have been the meaning of the word when John used it?
Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
