johnny guitar
Well-known member
The identity of The Son of God.
Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.
- Thread starter Towerwatchman
- Start date
You want it to believe it is talking about the identity of the Son of God and it does not. There is only the Word and God and no one can conclusively show where the Word is identified as Jesus?
johnny guitar
Well-known member
In 1:14,18 The Word is identified as The ONLY begotten Son of The Father.
Clear as crystal.
G
guest1
Guest
Yes it is the end of the discussion as you can not detail your point and you think because you list some scriptures you are right.
Then detail it out to us if it is crystal clear?
G
guest1
Guest
Read the passages I referenced without your theological BIAS as if you are reading them for the very first time.
My grandkids can see the Word is Jesus.
next…….
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Already have. Read and believe.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Now it's your turn; support your doubt. Tell us who is the Logos if not Jesus.
Again for a moment let's envision this debate in a court of law.
TWM = presents circumstantial Scriptural evidence that Jesus is the Logos, internally the verses do not disagree with each other but support each other, and as more and more are accumulated builds a powerful collection of scripture that points to only one conclusion. = Jesus is the Logos in John 1:1.
Nathan= states he has doubt because there is no explicit or direct evidence that Jesus is not the Logos before the incarnation.
BTW In a court of law, the jury is instructed to filter out imaginary doubt and probable doubt from reasonable doubt. Also, reasonable doubt requires evidence.
What would the judge rule?
In the real world, the judge would rule on the side that presents evidence that strongly supports their evidence. "I doubt it judge" carries no weight in the real world.
Now some people live in an imaginary world in which they think it operates as they see fit.
Last edited:
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Notice what you failed to post. Reasonable doubt requires evidence. Post away. You would have to prove that Jesus is not the Logos, and then prove who it is. In a court of law waving your hand and making empty statements is a guranteed loss. If you were OJ's lawyer, he would be doing time now.
OldShepherd
Well-known member
What many people either don’t know or seem to forget is, neither, John, Jesus nor any of the other key Christian figures in the N.T. were Greeks and Greek was not their first language. They were all Jews and their mother tongues were Hebrew and Aramaic and their faith history was Jewish.
So we must ask ourselves what was the Hebrew, Jewish, Old Testament view? Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra,” the Aramaic word for “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.
Here in this citation there are at least eighty examples where the name of YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with “memra.” When the Jew John said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word.” he was not saying anything new.
So we must ask ourselves what was the Hebrew, Jewish, Old Testament view? Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra,” the Aramaic word for “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.
Here in this citation there are at least eighty examples where the name of YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with “memra.” When the Jew John said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word.” he was not saying anything new.
Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:
In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.
Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord יהוה" is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God,"[ יהוה] but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). "Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra[/] (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).
In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.
Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord יהוה" is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God,"[ יהוה] but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). "Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra[/] (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).
The passages you referenced say that the Word became human and lived on earth among us. It is crystal clear that only after the Word became human and then is there a documented Jesus, that only then did Jesus exist.
Until you can conclusively show the Word was Jesus, then the Word was not Jesus before the Word became flesh. And you think you are the judge who makes a final decision on flimsy evidence?
No it says the Word became human at those scriptures and only after the Word became human is it documented there was a Son of God. It is so crystal clear you all are reaching big time.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Yes, only then did Jesus The MAN exist.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Only after the Word became a man, was The eternal Son of God REVEALED.
Existence in NOT in view in 1:14,18.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
In any court of law circumstantial evidence is just a good as direct evidence. In a court of law I would have proven my case that Jesus is the Logos.
Your position is equivalent to stating that I could not prove it rained, by stating the following circumstantial evidence.
I never saw the rain fall but I can conclude that the rain did fall because
The street is wet for blocks.
I heard thunder and saw lightning.
I saw storm clouds approaching
I saw storm clouds leaving after I noticed the street was wet.
And your objection is. "Until you can conclusively show that the rain fell, then the rain did not fall. "
Good luck with that.
OldShepherd
Well-known member
Jesus was a sentient being and was aware that He existed before creation.
John 17:5
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
You keep talking about creation which happened in the beginning. I am waiting for evidence that Jesus existed before the beginning, or as long as the Father existed because it says he is without beginning or end.
OldShepherd
Well-known member
It would be most helpful if you would actually read my post before responding.
John 17:5
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Note Jesus had glory with the Father before the world was.Genesis 1:1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
When did the world come into being? "In the beginning!" Before the beginning, see Jn 17:5,Jesus already existed.