And the Word was God

[SallyF]

John 1 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

This oft-pounced-on passage does not SAY that the "Word" is Jesus.

That notion is just one of the many things in Christianity where one must adopt a very serious tone and expression, and give sage noddings of the head, and declare with grave asseveration, that the passage MUST be referring to Jesus.

But, like many biblical passages, it's deliciously and deliberately non-specific: which adds a spicy tingle to the hide and seek played in the Great Game of Pretend called Christianity.

Given that the passage does not name Jesus, are there other heroes form the Jewish folklore that may have been considered the "Word" in Jesus' own time …?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 10 by SallyF

I find that people who will not give straight, simple, honest explanations and answers are charlatans.

A simple, honest explanation of John 1:1c is that it clearly means 'the word was a god."

This is found through the simple, honest method of analyzing all John's uses of the nominative theos (god) as found in John 1:1c and finding that John always used the article (ho, 'the') when he referred to the Most High God.

Then analyze all the uses by John of a predicate noun which comes before its verb (as in John 1:1c) and find that such uses are always indefinite ('a prophet,' 'a man,' etc.)

[url ]http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html [/url]

[Difflugia]

A simple, honest explanation of John 1:1c is that it clearly means 'the word was a god."

You're right as long as you yourself use the indefinite article. What you can't say, however, is that it is "the" simple, honest explanation.

A predicate nominative θεὸς without a definite article could also, simply and honestly, refer to the Most High God.

This is found through the simple, honest method of analyzing all John's uses of the nominative theos (god) as found in John 1:1c and finding that John always used the article (ho, 'the') when he referred to the Most High God.

Is there ever a case where John uses the predicate nominative without a definite article to mean a different god? Zeus? Chemosh perhaps? Or to refer to one of many gods?

I think a good way to translate it that captures the ambiguity would be, "...and the Word was divine." Perhaps John 1 means that the Word was "the God" or perhaps "a god." Someone reading it in Greek would have the same uncertainty and could marshall the same reasoning either way, so let's reflect that in the English.

It doesn't really matter, though. John makes clear that Jesus and Yahweh are identically equal in 10:30 and 17:11.

But even that doesn't matter. Perhaps the Prologue was added (as some commentators have suggested) at a later time and is as non-trinitarian as Jehovah's Witnesses. It's no secret that Matthew and Mark are definitely not trinitarian, so there's no problem positing that a later redactor of John wasn't either. The problem only appears to inerrantists, who must insist that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul must either all be trinitarian together or must all not be. If one is willing to rely on the text itself, simply and honestly, then there's no problem seeing that most of John is trinitarian, the Prologue may or may not be trinitarian, Luke is probably not trinitarian, and Matthew, Mark and the genuine Paulines are definitely not trinitarian.

[Mithrae]

It doesn't really matter, though. John makes clear that Jesus and Yahweh are identically equal in 10:30 and 17:11.

But even that doesn't matter. Perhaps the Prologue was added (as some commentators have suggested) at a later time and is as non-trinitarian as Jehovah's Witnesses.

10:30 - "I and the father are one" - one in what sense? Not in spatial occupancy or apparent form, surely, hence obviously not identical. A person so inclined could speculate that it means nothing more than being one in purpose and intention. Even moreso, 17:11 - "keep through Your name those whom You have given me, that they may be one as we are" - implies entirely distinct identities and personalities united in purpose in the Christian community, and hence by comparison arguably in the case of Jesus and the Father also. In the case of 10:30 especially those are perhaps strained interpretations in light of all the other instances such as, for example, Jesus accepting worship from people, but if those verses occurred in isolation I think they'd be pretty weak proof texts for Jesus' divinity.

By contrast, whatever grammatical tricks we play with 1:1 there's really quite limited scope for interpretive gymnastics in the subsequent sentences: "He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." 'A god' or 'the God'... what's the difference, as far as humans are concerned? Theologians may well argue whether an infinite number or only a billion angels can dance on the head of a pin, and whether being the eternal creator of the universe qualifies the Word as deserving Yahweh's capital G. But while the rest of the gospel seems pretty clear in itself, John 1 is the most unambiguous in its expression of Jesus' divinity regardless what microscopic cracks determined word-smiths might still perceive.

I think one would first have to assume that the text is intentionally obscure for the uninitiated in order to take such perceived ambiguities seriously. To any casual reader or any researcher insufficiently motivated to 'discover' that Jesus isn't really God, per se, the message seems clear enough: If there is only one God, then the Word/the only begotten Son qualifies, alongside the Father.

[tigger2]

Difflugia wrote:" A predicate nominative θεὸς without a definite article could also, simply and honestly, refer to the Most High God."

Not if we ignore the grammatical exceptions recognized by most Trinitarian NT Greek scholars themselves. Please list those uses by John which you believe show the almighty God called the nominative theos without the article as found in John 1:1c.

Or you could actually analyze my personal study found in the URL I gave above.

Oops! I have just discovered that it doesn't work, so I'll try again:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... _21.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html [/url]

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 4 by Difflugia]

John's last words tell us he didn't know who Jesus was.

John asked his disciples to go ask Jesus:. Are you he that should come or do we look for another? That's Johns testimony. Jesus didn't answer John's question. Just rattled off a bunch of reduculous things that impress Christians. The blind see...the lame walk. BIG DEAL! God let's people have powers as such to test us to see if we are loyal to him or follow people like jesus.

Christians are so impressed by Jesus. Why? He didn't answer John. Fools

[tigger2]

Difflugia wrote

:" A predicate nominative θεὸς without a definite article could also, simply and honestly, refer to the Most High God."

Please give me a list of John's nominative theos without the definite article which refer to the Most High God.

[SallyF]

Just HAD to share this with members …!

It is something we may need to consider VERY carefully.

But, you know, WHY would the possibly fictional Jesus character be known as "The Word" … he is not known to have written anything, and much of what he is reported to have said in his propaganda is filched from other folks.

The almost certainly fictional Moses character is FAR more likely to have been known as "The Word".

[marco]

Jesus didn't answer John's question. Just rattled off a bunch of reduculous things that impress Christians. The blind see...the lame walk. BIG DEAL! God let's people have powers as such to test us to see if we are loyal to him or follow people like jesus.

One can call Jesus a charlatan or a man who was self-deceived, or one might, like his family, think he was deranged. But it is odd to accept his miracles and then invent a ploy by God: "God lets people have powers to see if..." Does a deity need to "see if...." I think that kind of analysis on God rather reduces the force of your attack on Jesus.

If one is looking for foolishness, one can leave the actions of Christ and smile on the idiocies of Yahweh. Why attack one folly and leave a bigger one undisturbed?

[Elijah John]

Christians are so impressed by Jesus. Why? He didn't answer John. Fools

Moderator Warning


Do not call adherents of other religions "Fools", or anyone for that matter, at least here on this site.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Difflugia]

Please list those uses by John which you believe show the almighty God called the nominative theos without the article as found in John 1:1c.

There are only three cases of θεὸς appearing without a definite article in John, including 1:1. The other two are in 1:18 (referring to Jesus) and 8:54, which refers to God the Father (exactly how is ambiguous, the sense could either mean "our God" or "our god [among the gods]").

Now you can answer my question. Where is there a nominative θεὸς in John, with or without an article, that doesn't refer to God the Father (or Jesus, since you're arguing that the only way to read John 1:1 is that Jesus and God are not identical)?