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 …?

[Mithrae]

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

No, you need to read further into the chapter - all the way to verses 14-18! - to see that. Such a chore

[SallyF]

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

No, you need to read further into the chapter - all the way to verses 14-18! - to see that. Such a chore

Let's have a peek:

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.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

We need to remember we are reading the biased biographical propaganda of the possibly fictional Jesus character.

We need to remember that not soul ever demonstrates that we are reading the "Word of God".

The verses above are typical of the propaganda.

It's bloviated, obfuscatory ramble.

The "Word" could refer to the possibly fictional Jesus character.

The "Word" could refer to the almost certainly fictional Moses character.

Which, I suggest, was the deliberate intent of the propagandists.

I don't trust people who do not say things clearly and concisely.

I especially do not trust the propagandists of the shadowy Jesus character.

[Difflugia]

In a broad sense, what do you think John's goal was?

Whether I like John's style or not, it seems clear to me that he's claiming that Jesus was "the Word." Are you saying that he's not claiming that, but wants us to think that he is? John's wording is awkward, I expect in an attempt to sound literary, but I don't think it's really ambiguous, intentionally or otherwise. When I read John, I get that we are supposed to understand that Jesus is born into flesh as an avatar of Yahweh in a literal extension of Yahweh's divine person. I don't have a problem considering that "propaganda," but I don't understand what you otherwise mean. If John is intentionally ambiguous, what are the multiple interpretations that he is trying to make simultaneously possible?

[SallyF]

In a broad sense, what do you think John's goal was?

Whether I like John's style or not, it seems clear to me that he's claiming that Jesus was "the Word." Are you saying that he's not claiming that, but wants us to think that he is? John's wording is awkward, I expect in an attempt to sound literary, but I don't think it's really ambiguous, intentionally or otherwise. When I read John, I get that we are supposed to understand that Jesus is born into flesh as an avatar of Yahweh in a literal extension of Yahweh's divine person. I don't have a problem considering that "propaganda," but I don't understand what you otherwise mean. If John is intentionally ambiguous, what are the multiple interpretations that he is trying to make simultaneously possible?

I am riding somewhat on the skirts of the late Dr B Thiering here.

She hypothesised that the four booklets of gospel propaganda were directed towards four differing Jewish sects.

John was designed - it is hypothesised - to appeal to the Pharisee sect.

The Pharisees were very pro-Moses, and certain of them at least may have believed Moses to be the Son of Yahweh, in the way that Christians do with Jesus.

And when one is playing Pretend, one will use special words and phrases to make the game more tingly and mysterious, because the REAL meaning is only known to the initiated.

The Moses propaganda has the Moses character speak of a prophet that would come after him.

I suspect the Jesus propagandists were trying to have the Pharisees accept that their Leader was that prophet.

I also suspect that part of the reason for the obfuscation here is that OTHER readers will see the Jesus character as a new Moses and use terminology like the "Word" to refer to Jesus.

Christianity is insidious.

The propaganda has the Jesus character engage in a VERY interesting discussion with the Pharisee leader, Nicodemus, and good old "3:16" may not mean what Christians want it to mean.

We shall address this in another thread.

Clear, direct speech is honest speech.

We don't get that in the Christian propaganda.

I don't trust the Christian propaganda.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Seems clear enough who is being referred to as the Word:

"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. 15 John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me."


And in verse 29,

"The next day John saw [Jesus] coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’"




Peace again to you!

[SallyF]

Peace to you,

Seems clear enough who is being referred to as the Word:

"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. 15 John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me."


And in verse 29,

"The next day John saw [Jesus] coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’"




Peace again to you!

I suggest that even the most devout slave of Christ must admit that it's all very obscurely written.

I don't trust propaganda.

I trust obscure propaganda even less.

If the propagandists here had written clearly, we would know PRECISELY what they meant.

They don't.

We have to put meaning into soubriquets like "The Word" and give each other knowing winks and nods.

As I say, it adds to the tingly, mystery and exclusivity of playing make-believe.

It may possibly be that Moses was known as "The Word" and Christian propagandists were trying to sneak their guy into that position.

Moses and Jesus are mentioned in the same sentence. The propagandists look to be making a veryclose association there. With, I suggest, a view to taking over - just as they did with the whole Solstice birthday celebrations of other supposed god-men.

Consider what you posted:

We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

What "glory" had the "we" seen at this stage in the Jesus campaign ...?

[Mithrae]

No, you need to read further into the chapter - all the way to verses 14-18! - to see that. Such a chore

Let's have a peek:
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.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

We need to remember we are reading the biased biographical propaganda of the possibly fictional Jesus character.

We need to remember that not soul ever demonstrates that we are reading the "Word of God".
The verses above are typical of the propaganda.
It's bloviated, obfuscatory ramble.

The "Word" could refer to the possibly fictional Jesus character.
The "Word" could refer to the almost certainly fictional Moses character.

Which, I suggest, was the deliberate intent of the propagandists.
I don't trust people who do not say things clearly and concisely.
I especially do not trust the propagandists of the shadowy Jesus character.

Trust is not required for understanding, only the ability to read. In just these few verses Jesus is unambiguously identified as 'the Word' in no fewer than three distinct ways:
> As the one who became flesh, dwelt among and was beheld by the author and other contemporaries; the obvious subject of the book, and explicitly identified as such by John the Baptist
> As the vehicle of grace and truth (in explicit contrast against Moses)
> As God's only begotten Son; witnessed in that first chapter by John B and Nathanael (1:34 & 49) and elsewhere by Jesus himself (eg. 9:35-38 etc.)

Perhaps disdain for these Christians is getting in the way of grasping such an obvious message?

[Difflugia]

[Replying to post 5 by SallyF]
Thanks. That makes sense, at least in that it's plausible. I haven't read any of Dr. Thiering's work, but I listen to Robert Price's "Bible Geek" podcast and he's mentioned it favorably on a number of occasions.

Such a system wouldn't be without precedent. Valentinian gnostics had a similar two-tiered view of scripture with more allegorical interpretations discussed only among initiates. In fact, that seems to be part of the orthodox insistence on a literal reading of scripture. Reading scripture as allegory was seen as gnostic heresy, even when with texts that were almost certainly intended that way originally.

[SallyF]

The whole business here is VERY typically Christian …

Playing "guess what we really mean: because we're not going to give you a straight, simple honest answer (because we know fine well we are being dodgy)"

Take this shining exemplar of Christian chicanery:

22 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?�

23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’�[d]

Yep, right from the start, Christians could not be trusted to give a straight, simple, honest answer.

"The Word", for example, as we're discussing here could mean Moses, of Jesus or your Aunt Sally.

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