Understanding John 1:1-14

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Imabetterboy, Mar 27, 2018.

  1. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Your right God did give his word to others that is clear, they preached Gods word for THAT time. It was only in the last days that God spoke through his son. Heb 1:1 tells us that.

    ** Heb 1:1 On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. 2 But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son,

    If others failed they'd be false prophets and many did arise and were false but Jesus proved faithful. If Jesus had failed, God may have had to look for another way, I don't know. that is speculation.

    Gods will, will not fail only those who claim to do it and don't, are the ones who fail. (not God's will.)

    ** 1Pet 1:23-24 For “all flesh is* like grass, and all its glory is like a blossom of the field; the grass withers, and the flower falls off, 25 but the saying of Jehovah endures forever.”And this “saying” is the good news that was declared to you.

    The underline "the sayings" = the word. = the good news.

    That's like saying the Israelites who didn't obey the law meant that God's law had failed, the infalliabe law of God was doomed because many failed to live up to it. Lols.

    Adam and Jesus were both earthly sons of God, Adam was created, But Jesus was begotten by means of pregnancy when he grew up to be 30 he was fully matured a second Adam and was baptised in dedication to do the will of God. Yes, it was possible for him sin, and it was hard for him, he struggled with emotions and physical pain, but remained faithful to fulfilling his role as the promised one.
     
  2. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    What exactly is it, that your trying to get across to me?
     
  3. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I am arguing that the word is NOT an entity as you suppose but that which is spoken. You want to add additional meaning to the word that is spoken (that you clearly recognize is correct), but you also want it to means an angel which is incorrect.

    Your understanding is that an angel was transferred to the womb of Mary which you understand was called the word before his incarnation.

    I believe this is a pagan doctrine found in Egyptian, Greek, Roman and other mythologies. There is No direct link to an angel being called the word. And it is completly contrary to God specific word found at Matt 1:1, 16, 18, and 20. That give the two sources of origin for Jesus conception. He is OUT OF Mary (not through) and OUT OF holy Spirit (Not out of an archangel) unless you are making the claim the archangel is God's active force. The spirit of life comes out of God, from the source of Life = Jehovah the source of all life.

    **Ps 36:9 With you is the source of life. ** Job 33:4 God’s own spirit made me, And the Almighty’s own breath brought me to life.
    It's not me you have an argument with, But with the actual word of God. lols

    Ek is the Greek proposition meaning out of = the gentitive of origin or source from which something is made.

    if An angel was placed in the womb it would have used the preposition DIA = through Mary, instead of ek out of Mary. Since, the angel is already a fully formed life.
     
  4. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Joshuastone 7, my dear brother, I am not saying God's word is fallible realy how did you come up with that?. God's will will be done. His purposes fulfilled, his promises will come true. If he was fallible we have no hope.

    How does Jn 1:1 say Jesus is the 1st creation?

    Jesus was not born and named until the 1st century when he came into existence to his mother Mary and his heaenly Father Jehovah.

    Help me understand this paradox. This mystery, of how a person can preexist his mother and his forefathers David and Abraham, was he NOT in the loins of David??

    I would say he is the 1st new creation.

    The truth will set us free! Be peaceful and enjoy life IABB.
     
  5. 4,167
    835
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Tsaphah, greetings brother...

    As you well know, your insights are always appreciated by me, and I wish for your input on each and every subject here. You may be careful who you share with, but your "ideas and beliefs" are nourishment to many here. :)

    All love...
     
    wallflower likes this.
  6. 4,167
    835
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    The "Word" in Jhn 1:1 is not spoken of as existing forever, anywhere in the text. You infer that, and had the text believed it was as important as you do, it would be there. You also infer that "word" is part of Gods attributes, yet that doesn't exist anywhere in the text. It is not listed in his qualities anywhere. God's qualities are laid out in detail throughout Scripture, and "Word" is nowhere in them.

    I have told you that the "beginning" in Jhn 1:1 is extremely valuable in the context of what the "Logos" and the "Theos/Theon" are, according to the original Greek, but yet you brush it off. In the original language the beginning must be the beginning of the "word", that is why it's there. That is the structure of the context. You implant some other beginning that is not in the text, such as you suggested, "light", "Jesus's baptism", etc... Even though none of those events are mentioned in Jhn 1:1, only "beginning" and "Word"!

    Your method of connecting the "Word" in Jhn 1:1 to "God giving his word to Jesus (and others) to preach" can be used for anyone in the Bible, Noah, Moses etc... Some succeed, some failed. But I could say John the Baptist could be called the "The Word" according to your understanding, yet the Bible says that only Jesus is known by that title. Why isn't John the Baptist called by the "figurative" name of "The Word"? He was the greatest man who ever lived (except Jesus). Therefore you interpret, without letting what's there to be there, and what's not, not be there. You follow no Biblical rule in this matter, and your way of understanding can be applied to anyone in the Bible, and call them all by the name "The Word", invalidating Christ Jesus title as "The Word". John the Baptist succeeded in his ministry too...

    I have shared with you the original Greek shows the "Word" is a separate entity then the "God" (Theon) in Jhn 1:2, of which you say "Of course it is, it's his attribute." (And that makes no sense, it is either him or not.) No, it is wholly separate from God in the text.

    I have showed you by making the "Word" in Jhn 1:1 Gods "will", you reduce the Scripture to a mere trivial statement that our God has "will" and speaking ability.

    I've shared with you the Scriptures that discuss Jesus's pre-human existence.

    Jhn 8:58 “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

    Jhn 17:5 "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

    Jhn 16:28 "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

    Jhn 13:3 "Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;"

    You claim they are translated wrong, although I have clearly given you all the original Greek, and 30+ translations that all transcribe these text just the same.

    I shared with you Jhn 1:15, and you disagreed with the original Greek and all translations in the world.

    "Here are 30 translations that disagree with you: (Bible Hub)

    The Greek word your looking for as "superior" is "hyperechousais" as in Rom 13:1, and it does not appear in Jhn 1. (Concordance of Hyperechousais)

    Rom 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities,"

    The original Greek in Jhn 1:15 also disagrees with you: "Protos mou en" / "Before me he was" = (Interlinear)"

    You claim "Spirit and Word" are the same thing, however nowhere in the text does this exist.

    You have changed your understanding of what the "Word" in Jhn 1:1 is several times in our discussion, and as well how the "Word" became flesh in Jhn 1:14.

    You said it in post #7 when trying to explain how Jesus became "flesh": "Jesus at his baptism was embodied with the word and spirit to become (flesh) one in purpose with God to do Gods will."

    But then in post #10 you contradicted this idea when you said: "Jesus did not come FLESH at his baptism, he was already flesh born to Mary his mother 30 years beforehand."

    If you don't believe John, that Jesus had a pre-human existance, in the same book that he wrote "In the beginning was the Word" then what can I help you with? John told you that John the Baptist called him his superior, then said he existed before him, and this is EXACTLY what the Greek is saying. Even Trinitarians understand that...

    The only way someone can have the kind of view you have is to believe the text has been corrupted by man, and the scriptures that discuss Jesus's pre-human existence were added. Because I'm sorry to say, but if you believe all the text is sound, and inspired, then you don't have a grasp on the original languages...

    Jhn 1:15 "John bore witness about him, yes, he cried out: “This was the one of whom I said, ‘The one coming behind me has advanced in front of me, for he existed before me."

    Jhn 8:58 “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

    Jhn 17:5 "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

    Jhn 16:28 "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

    You don't seem to understand that Jesus could have gave up his life in heaven, lived as a human, and regained his life in heaven because Jehovah can resurrect anyone, he is capable of anything, and raising you exactly how you were.

    Mth 3:9 "Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones."

    Anyway.... I have nothing more to add to this thread...

    Love, in the Way...
     
  7. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I have not suggested, the word existed forever, I don't know how long God spoke his word. I have illustrated that by speaking about the 10 commandments given to Moses, that was God's word, but that began about 1513BCE. Ps 119:105 It is possible that God could speak for eternity. But as for a specific word or purpose, He could speak a different word at various times throughout history.

    When I started to read John with an unbiased mind I wanted to know what the original meaning of the word was, and surprising enough, it simply means that which comes out of the mouth as meaningful speech.

    You ignore Ps 33: 6, 9 where both spirit and word are part of God's attributes.

    Please, I beg you, without applying an interpretation to it, what do you understand is the original meaning of word.?? Question 1.

    Please explain to me what spirit and word are in Ps 33:6, 9? Question 2

    Tell me please is it (a ) beginning or is it (the) beginning in the Greek? and Why is it assumed to be (the) beginning? Question 3.

    If it is important as you say how do you determine which beginning? Quest. 4.

    You assume that when it says in the beginning was the word, it must mean the beginning of the word. I assume you mean in the beginning the word was (created) Is that correct?

    If your allowed to put your reasoning to it than others should be allowed. And others assume it means that in the beginning the word was (existing)

    Another way would be, in the beginning the word was (spoken)

    I did not suggest light was in the beginning (though God is light) I said God spoke the word light and light came to be. Which was the beginning of the 6 days of creation. That is crossed reference to Ps 33:6, 9.

    So tell me WHY it CANNOT mean in the beginning the word was, what God spoke according to these scriptures? Question 5

    Sorry but that is incorrect. It is true there have been many prophets in whom God put his word including John the Baptist, BUT none of them was specifically chosen to be the Messiah as promised who would fulfil the things in the word of God. See Jn 1:45

    ** Jn 1:45 Philip found Nathaniel and said to him: “We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote:

    Was not what the prophets wrote the word of God?? Question 6

    Is not Jesus the fulfilment of that word?? Question 7

    You accuse me me of not using rules. That is incorrect! I follow very strict rules. I keep to the original meanings of words (That is the foundation of truth not interpretation of it) unless they can be shown to be different in context.

    When did the meaning of the word **word** change that I should believe it means a person?? Question 8

    The word “light” is used as a figurative title of Jesus, the disciples and Jehovah, that does not change the meaning of the word light. Light is not a person.

    Light, bread, water, stone, are all used figuratively the meaning of the word does not change it just describes a function found in the meaning of that word. And can apply to other things and other people.

    So because Jesus is given a figurative title AFTER his ascension does not change the original meaning of the word word. And Rev19 and Jn 1:1 are far apart and in different contexts.

    If you are to reason because Jesus is the word in Rev than he must be the word in Jn 1:1 is false reasoning. I could use the same reasoning to say Jesus is King Nebuchadnezzar as he is king of kings and Jesus is king of kings.

    Would you agree to the above reasoning? Question 9

    I appreciate your efforts to show me, however, I cannot comprehend how you come to the conclusion the word is an entity separated from God.

    Consider it from my point of view that the original meaning of the word is what is spoken out of the mouth (something that is said not the attribute of speech) as indicated in Ps 33:6,9

    I have no reason to believe it is a HIM or a He but an IT. I see it as something spoken. A thing and not a person. And that is the way it was originally translated. The Trinitarians changed it to a person just prior to the printing of the KJV. They personified the word, word. And as you know personification is never a person. Like Herbie the car that was made a person. Sin, and death are all personified in the scriptures as a person.

    Am I to assume they are actual persons? And why would that be different to the word being personified?? Question 10

    What Greek term is it that makes an inanimate thing (word) a person?? Question 11

    This is not the intent of what I said. The word is what is spoken something said, not the attribute its self. But a plan or a purpose, expressing his will, And that is highly important! What comes from the mouth of God, we should pay attention to ,because what he says, IS HIS WORD.

    I have answered these points, and had raised question for you to answer which you either missed or you ignored them! I'll assume you missed them accidentally. Rather than go over them again you can look it up.

    Do you believe Jesus is a sinless MAN having the body and mind of a man? A corresponding type of man as Adam was before he sinned? Question 12.

    I'm sorry, but a hundred translations printed by Trinity believers are going to translated it accord to how they see it. That reason is moot. It has been with difficulty translating it that way because of the Greek meaning.

    superlative form ,first, before, principal, most important. Protos is the superlative form of pro = before. Therefore it is not just before but of an adjective of superlative degree. And mou is a possessive pronoun meaning OF ME. Which means he not only has surpassed John the baptist he is before him to the superlative degree, he is his chief, his leader, It can be translated the Chief of me.

    The ONLY reason translators translate it as as “before” is because of their Trinity belief and not according to the Greek scriptures, the sense is changed from dignity in the first portion to time in the second.

    John is saying that Jesus has surpassed him because he is the most important one. The chief of him. He is first in priority and importance.

    It is ambiguous to say the least.



    Word and spirit are virtually the same thing. Ps 33:6,9 PROVES that, and the spirit of prophecy is the same as the word of God. One is unseen and the other seen.

    ** 1Pet 1:11 They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within themwas indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.

    ** 2 Pet 1:21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.

    Word and spirit go hand in hand. Jesus is the word of prophecy, and the spirit of prophecy. Rev 19:10 literal = the spirit of prophecy. When we read God's word, that has spirit, life to inspire us to better things.

    I have explained the mistake I made in Post 7. That you have obviously missed. Or ignored.

    And I have not changed the original meaning of word. It is what comes out of the mouth as meaningful speech.

    Speech can be various things, for example a plan, a purpose, a prophecy or a message. IT is what is said, and can be different things at different times. That does not change the original meaning of the word word, which is “something said.”

    This is explained above.

    Of course Trinitarians understand that. Lols therefore I should believe the trinity because they are in agreement with you. Lols If they are right on this than they must be right about the trinity.????

    I have answered this in a previous post which I had no response. You either ignore it deliberately or you simple missed it.

    This is simple speculation a story made up to justify an angel coming to earth to be a man. There are no scriptures this conjecture.

    Giving up his life twice lols, I thought it was ONCE for all time.

    Cheers Brother you tried! I'm a hard person to convince.

    I was once a Trinitarian, than an angel become a man believer and now I believe simply, Jesus is the second sinless Man (the 1st man sinned) who is the beginning of the new humanity. Who came into existence by a miraculous conception in the first century to his mother Mary.. No man preexists their mother.

    Love and blessings! IABB
     
  8. 4,167
    835
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    That's exactly what you've been arguing all along:

    And I (QUOTE): "I don't believe the word is created. To say God created "the word" is to say God had no thinking ability for how would he had planned and thought out how to create!! The word is his own vocabulary, it is his spirit / wisdom and power / knowledge." (END QUOTE)

    You have been arguing all along that "word" was a part of Jehovah's attributes that always existed.

    It is better to admit when your wrong brother, then to side step. One only needs to read back here through your responses...

    That's your criteria? With your approach then everything is his attributes. You name it and it would be his attribute.

    Just because Jehovah has had to kill, that doesn't mean it's part of his attributes... In the same way he spoke and created, he spoke and destroyed!

    I have told you many times now, it depends on the context used. You seem to think a word has the same meaning Bible wide, but each text must stand on its own. And that approach had led you down a deep path away from accuracy... I've seen this many times. How long do you think I've been debating this with people?

    It means exactly what it says, but you take that as a definition for Bible wide, which means you loose the meaning elsewhere.

    A beginning is a beginning brother, Jehovah never had a beginning, so its got to be a beginning of something. And you don't think that's important? We've now wrote reams back and forth about one verse, but you claim a word in it isn't important... o_O

    You started this thread to discuss Jhn 1:1, but claim one of the words in that verse is not important...lol

    The context of the sentence the "Word" appears. The context is the beginning of the "Word". I don't know how many times I can type it.

    It means, before the beginning the "Word" did not exist.

    That makes absolutely no sense. "In the beginning the word was existing"? Are you serious? No one talks like that, and certainly not the Bible. If the Bible talks about eternities, it's very clear. Come on....

    You are back and forth whether the "Word" has always existed or not. You don't understand it either, you have created your own little trinity.

    You have been constantly contradicting yourself.

    So your saying it existed before, but never used.... You are grasping for straws man... That is not what is found anywhere in the text. No where does the Bible say the "Word" had always existed... Nor does it call the "Word" an attribute of God, in fact Jhn 1 says the "Word" is not part of God.

    Why can't you put 2+2 together? Jhn 1:2 clearly indicates the "Word" is not part of God (Theon).

    I'm not sure what more to say to someone who covers their eyes and ears from learning.

    You did suggest the beginning in Jhn 1:1 could have been "light". Here you are again back tracking and stumbling over yourself.

    I asked you specifically; "What was the beginning in Jhn 1:1", and you said


    (QUOTE): "Ok. John 1:1 says in the begining was the word. What beginning? It could mean the beginning of Jesus Ministry when he was anointed by the holy spirit and chosen as Gods son to be the spiritual leader of Israel. And the beginning of the new creation.

    Or it could apply to the beginning of creation in Gen 1:2, where Gods spirit was hoovering (like a dove/bird by the way) over the waters and God spoke and light came to be. It was obviously Gods purpose to create light and once he spoke, what he had been preparing came to be = light."

    (END QUOTE)

    You are all over the map, trying to clean up for every objection, but stumbling over yourself, and contradicting yourself everywhere. The sad part is your not putting it all together...

    There was nothing before the beginning... A beginning is something separate from Jehovah because he had no beginning! There is no such thing as "beginning" to Jehovah, it was created.

    You cannot say the word always was, but then it was created when put in use, that is a complete failure of this debate. "Beginning" was created...

    What does that got to do with the "word" as Gods spoken will? You claim now that in order for Gods word to be fulfilled, it applies only to Jesus? Again, your all over the map. Where does the Bible say that the Spirit and word of God only applies to Jesus????? You claim the name given to him in Rev 19 isn't a proper name but "bestowed" because he was to accomplish Gods will at baptism, yet now your saying it can only apply to him...

    What does "logos" have to do with being specifically chosen to be the Messiah????????? You grabbed that out of thin air!

    What are you talking about? Did not the law and prophets tell us Elijah would come? So Jhn the Baptist is "The Word of God" as well according to your understanding. But wait you said only Jesus is given the "Word", but then you say Jesus isn't the "Word" because it's Jehovah's speech, you don't know what to believe....

    You can't interpret the Bible as you wish... You have deceived yourself in this matter...

    That is not how the Bible works.

    "logos" several meanings throughout the text, and each sentence structure stands on it's own, yet you want to apply one meaning to them all. That is a failed approach. I'm sorry, but maybe I need to speak freely now...

    "Light" does become a person if someone is recognized or named as "The Light." If I name my son "Truck", does that mean no trucks exist in the world? Does that mean there is no person in the world named truck? Does that mean my sons name cannot be truck, because it's already being used for an automobile???? How dumb does that sound? That is what your doing to the word "logos" in the Bible.

    If Rev 19 calls Jesus "The Word" that is his name and his title and who he is. If Psm says the "word" of God brought about creation, that's what it means, Gods will brought about creation. They both are correct!

    YOU CANNOT APPLY A SINGLE MEANING TO A WORD EVERYWHERE...

    Each text stands on it's own....

    You studied a specific meaning of the word, then ran with that understanding throughout all the text, and deceived yourself.

    That's probably why your hear. If you are willing to stop and think for a moment that there is a possibility you could be wrong, it would give you a chance to regroup. I've done it many times over the years.... It's a good thing to admit when your wrong, it means you will become closer to our Lord.

    Your talking all over yourself. The word does change depending on it's usage...

    You can have a proper noun be a noun, or vise versa.

    You still ignore how Jesus is not only spoken of as the "Word" in Rev but also spoken as the "beginning". No one else is spoken of as the beginning (besides Jehovah), and the Word is never spoken of as existing for ever, so Jehovah never had a beginning. There is only one ultimate beginning! And it just so happens Jhn 1:1 talks about a beginning and a Word, doesn't it?

    Absolutely not... You are seeing exactly what you want to see, and it doesn't follow Biblical precedence.

    What are you talking about now? You agreed the entity was separate from God, but now you say you never said that!

    Now I have to quote you again..........

    Post #12 and I quote again:

    (QUOTE) "Yes I agree to most of this! The fact the definate article is NOT used means it is Not emphatic and therefore meaning it is relative to a lesser degree. It is saying that what God purposes (word) is that we know God. It is not saying the word is God himself. But we should get to know him. Jn 1:18"

    (END QUOTE)

    And your response is to the original Greek explanation I posted in #6:

    (QUOTE) "Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase 'predicate nominative'.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell's Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’."

    (END QUOTE)

    Sure, unless someone also has the name "The Word" then it's a proper noun.

    So your saying to your self; "How can they both be right, word means what it does, it doesn't change." You keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over......

    If I say a truck is a good tool for a business, you'll know what I mean, an automobile. But if I say this is my son Truck, you would know I named my son Truck, a proper noun. Does that word Truck now have anything to do with businesses??????

    Now how about this; Let's say I'm in the trucking business, and named my son "Truck". Maybe I planned for him to take over the business, and his name plays a part in my plan?????

    Jesus is the "Word" because he is the will of God....

    So you refuse to listen to everyone else in the world, because you understand correctly... I've seen this a million times....

    You have John the Baptist saying "Jesus is greater then I am because he is greater then I am." This is classical self interpretation Sir....

    How dumb is that?????

    I'm saying this to try and reach you.........

    They are not the same thing, you have implied it! Spirit can bring about will, word can, so can courage, so can faith, so can any number of things. "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed you will move mountains." So now word/Spirit/and faith are the same things right?????

    Now everywhere it says "testifying", or "speaking" of any kind then that's a connection to you? You saw connections everywhere when you started your study didn't you?

    Brother, I would hate to learn what this approach has done to the rest of your understandings in the Bible...

    This is exactly how the Watchtower gets to 1914.

    You laugh, but that's exactly what the Bible says...

    Phil 2:7 "No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human."

    Look, no offense, but I can't discuss this subject any longer...
     
  9. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    No problem Brother! I learnt a valuable lesson today thank Jehovah!

    I would like to have went on a little further, as you never realy got to see what I understood, I think that was because you could not handle something contrary to what you stronglly, beleived. (Perhaps it is me, I have not always been good at explaining things)

    Some of the things you claimed I was contradictory are not contradictions. You wanted the word to be a person, and you wanted the beginning to be what you wanted to be. You were not able to comprenhand how Gods word is part of Gods attributes, and still have a begining, through time.

    That is the nature of the word, because the word is not just some (one word) it is a number of words making up a purpose or plan. A particular plan / purpose can have a beginning at diferent times. For example, it was God's plan (word) to bring a world wide flood, that began its beginning with God revealing that will or purpose to Noah. And you can think of many other occassions God had a plan for certian times through out history. It is basiclly called the word of prophcey.

    But hey! I hope I'm wrong and your right!

    Jehovah is still God, Jesus is still the son of God, and his Kingdom will come, Have peace and give by regards to The Truck, that delightful little son of yours. Why you would want to name him TheTruck is got me beat!
    Cheers! And blessings.
     
  10. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    To me Jn 20:31 Is central to understanding Jn 1:1-34. The purpose of John's writing his gospel is to identify Jesus as the one who fulfils Jehovah's word. (Isa 42:1)


    ** Jn 20:31 But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is THE Christ, the Son of God

    ** Isa 42:1 Look! My servant, whom I support! My chosen one, whom I have approved! I have put my spirit in him; He will bring justice to the nations

    ** Deut 18:15-22 Put his word in him.

    From the preceding scriptures and I quote, Deut.18, and Isa 42 I see two significant decrees by the word of God (1) he would put his word in him. And (2) he would put his spirit in him.

    Far as I can see, word /spirit are used to the same context in the beginning when all things came into existence.

    Therefore, to my understanding, there seems to be good reason that John is here making references to the spirit of God , his word, when he on that occasion spoke into existence, the things, he was thinking or planing.


    ** Ps 33:6 By the word of Jehovah the heavens were made, And by the spirit of his mouth everything in them.


    The spirit of God's word seems to be be his power by which he accomplishes things. (Isa 55:11)


    The following info is a simplified understanding of what I believe Johns gospel was trying to tell us. And is based upon the connection of the word and spirit that comes from out of the mouth of God during the time of creation. Namely Ps 33:6, 9, 11 and Gen 1:2-31.


    And considering the above introductory preamble. I have also felt the need to keep it based on the alternative reading of scriptures, founded in the earliest English Bible versions prior to KJV, and the Greek meaning of texts itself. Which, I feel renders the Greek in better terms.


    It is not intended to change your view but to give but the alternative way of understanding, if in case the other way is found in some way to be incorrect. Than one can make an informed decisions to chose that which is for his/her good.


    1 In the beginning was the word, (spirit) and the word (spirit)was towards God, and the Word (spirit)was God.

    2 This (word / spirit) was in the beginning with God.

    3 All things came into existence through it, and without it not one thing came into existence. What has come into existence

    4 by means of it was life, and the life was the light of men.

    5 And the light is shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not overpowered it.

    6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. (This is a decisive break to the general theme to highlight Johns the baptist, input and reason for being included in the narrative) (Why)

    7 This man came as a witness, in order to bear witness about the light,(a new spiritual truth) so that people of all sorts might believe through him.(J t B)

    8 He (J t B) was not that light, but he was meant to bear witness about that light. (The light from God)

    9 The true light (the spirit of God) that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world.

    10 He (God, as represented by the spirit in Jesus Isa 40:3, Isa 42:1) was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him. (By means of God's ransom the world is saved, they did not know God but Jesus would teach them)

    11 He (God, as represented by the spirit in Jesus Isa 40:3, Isa 42:1 Jn 1:23 … Make the way of Jehovah straight, ) came to his own home, but his own people did not accept him.

    12 However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name. (Spiritually begotten children)

    13 And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God. (by the spirit /word of God) (1Pet 1:23 = rebirth) (Jn 3:6 = born of the spirit)

    14 So the Word (spirit) became flesh (Jesus begotten as a spiritual son, filled with the spirit of God,--- his baptism) and tabernacle (dwell in the temple of Jesus fleshly body) among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favour and truth.(Jesus chosen to be God's spiritually begotten son and anointed with the spirit) (Isa 40:5) (Ex 40:33-34) And the cloud began to cover the tent of meeting, and Jehovah’s glory filled the tabernacle. 35 Moses was not able to go into the tent of meeting because the cloud remained over it, and Jehovah’s glory filled the tabernacle (Eph 2:19-21)

    The presence of God would be with Jesus. Or God is with us. (Acts 10:38)

    15 (John bore witness about him, yes, he cried out: saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was to be chief of me. (He was to identify the one on whom the spirit rested = The chosen one as foretold in Isa 42:1)

    16 For we all received from his fullness, even undeserved kindness upon undeserved kindness. (Col 2:9 fullness of the divine quality, Jn 3:34 He had the spirit without measure)

    17 Because the Law was given through Moses, the undeserved kindness and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ. (God had spoken through the prophets and it came to be.)

    18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten son who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (It was God's purpose to Know God, and Jesus throughout his ministry taught us about the father = God.) (Jn 7:3, Jn 10:30, Jn 14:7 to mention a few)

    19 This is the witness John gave when the Jews sent priests and Levities from Jerusalem to ask him: “Who are you?”

    20 And he admitted it and did not deny it, saying: “I am not the Christ.”

    21 And they asked him: “What, then? Are you Elijah?” He replied: “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?”And he answered: “No!”

    22 So they said to him: “Who are you? Tell us so that we may give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

    23 He said: “I am a voice of someone crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make the way of Jehovah straight,’ just as Isaiah the prophet said.” (John idenifies himself as the voice in the wilderness who was to identity the way of God. Isa 40:3, Jesus represented God because of the spirit of God in him)

    24 Now those sent were from the Pharisees.

    25 So they questioned him and said to him: “Why, then, do you baptise if you are not the Christ or Elijah or the Prophet?”

    26 John answered them: “I baptise in water. One is standing among you whom you do not know,

    27 the one coming behind me, the lace of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”

    28 These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptising.

    29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and he said: “See, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

    30 This is the one about whom I said: ‘After me comes a man who has surpassed me, for he was to be the leader of me.

    31 Even I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptising in water was so that he might be made manifest to Israel.”

    32 John also bore witness, saying: “I viewed the spirit coming down as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him.

    33 Even I did not know him, but the very One who sent me to baptise in water said to me: ‘Whoever it is upon whom you see the spirit coming down and remaining, this is the one who baptises in holy spirit.’

    34 And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the Son of God

    I have kept it as simple as I could. In fact it is simple to me, now, but when I was of another opinion those preconceived idea kept clouding my mind. It was not until I could see objectively that the facts became clear.

    My mind is not closed, there may be aspects I have not seen or understood and so I am always open to your scrutiny and honest appraisal.

    I do not see Johns gospel, referring to Jesus physical birth, as that was considered by Matthew and Luke conclusively, I see Johns gospel from the point of view that John is trying to get across the choosing of Jesus as the spiritual son of Israel who will be the Messiah King, High priest, and prophet. I am taking his words recorded at Jn 20:31 to support that view.

    Anointing was carried out in old Jewish practice as a setting aside something or someone for a holy work or purpose. So in this case with Jesus and his anointing at his baptism by the spirit/ word filling him, was God setting him aside as the one chosen to fulfil these noble roles in due time.

    John from the outset in Jn 1:1, Is bringing to our attention, the authority and power of his word that would be invested into his earthly son to fulfil God's Messianic prophecies (= his word). The word of salvation, that many were looking forward to, as spoken of in the scriptures before he arrived to be baptised.

    All brotherly love and blessing to you all!
     

Share This Page