Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

[Towerwatchman]

Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

The Greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into English as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of. But the Greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the English “a”, or “an”. Often the Grammarians add the English indefinite articles “a” or “an” to give the proper sense of the passage, therefore pointing to an unidentifiable person, someone we do not have prior knowledge of. But this does not mean that every time a noun lacking the definite article occurs in the Greek text it should have an indefinite article in the translation. Depending on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea that the writer, translators render nouns lacking the definite article, either indefinite, definite, or none.

The gospel of John is intended to be read based on the thesis which is the first 18 verses, which is anchored on the first verse. If one believes that in the first verse, Jesus is God, then one reads the gospel from that point of view, but if one believes Jesus is a created being based on the first verse, then one will read the rest of the gospel based on that point of view. Therefore, the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1

Dissect vs 1 into a logical argument [premise 1] In the beginning was the Word, [premise 2] and the Word was with God, [conclusion] and the Word was God [or a god.] Therefore, premise 1 and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.

In the beginning, was (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν)[en- ar•khay eimi].

If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razor's edge, where one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razors edge is what John is opening to. John does not open referring to the beginning of Genesis but prior to it, in fact prior to time itself. Note this imaginary line relates to the eternal and the temporal, and not to the Genesis account of creation because creation is not mentioned until vs. 3. Notice where John places the Logos in reference to the beginning; if the Logos is a created being, then the Logos would be included in the ‘beginning’ or after. Using [ἦν eimi] “was”, which denotes absolute existence instead of [ἐγένετο, egeneto] “came into being”, or “began to be”, which is used in vs. 3, John is placing the Logos prior to the beginning. John is saying that the Logos absolutely existed prior to the beginning, and the only One who existed prior to the beginning is God in the eternal. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for John 1:1 is “the Word was God” not “was a god”.

Any rebuttal should be able to support its position by using John 1:1 only.

 

[Yahchristian]

Therefore, the only logical conclusion for John 1:1 is “the Word was God” not “was a god”.

I agree !!!

But just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is this statement also true?

“God was the Word.”

I say Yes since the word “was” in the phrase “the Word was God” signifies it is an identity statement.

 

[Towerwatchman]

I agree !!!

But just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is this statement also true?

“God was the Word.”

I say Yes since the word “was” in the phrase “the Word was God” signifies it is an identity statement.

No.
“And the Word was God” (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος/ kahee- theh·os –eimi- ho -log·os ). In the Greek order, “and God was the Word”. [Θεὸς, theh.os] “God”, is the predicate [the part of a sentence or clause that expresses what is said of the subject] and not the subject of the proposition.

"God was the Word". God becomes the subject.

 

[Yahchristian]

Is this statement also true?

“God was the Word.”

No.

Well...

If one believes that in the first verse, Jesus is God,

...then that also means “God is Jesus”.

That is how identity statements work.

Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

When YOU say “Jesus is God” are you making an identity statement?

Or are you simply predicating divine nature to Jesus?

 

[Towerwatchman]

Well...



...then that also means “God is Jesus”.

That is how identity statements work.

Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

When YOU say “Jesus is God” are you making an identity statement?

Or are you simply predicating divine nature to Jesus?

You are using the wrong analogy. You are one being with one center of consciousness that answers to the name Yahchristian. God is a being with three centers of consciousness that identify as Father Son and HS.

Monotheism = there is only one true God.

• There are three divine persons called “God” in the Bible.
• Within the one being that is God there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  • “Person” refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will and desire.
  • Just as I am a being with one center of self-consciousness, who I call “I”, God is a being with three centers of self-consciousness each of which can say “I”.
    • I am the Father.
    • I am the Son.
    • I am the Holy Spirit.
  • Each has a first-person perspective.
• They are three distinct persons.
  • The Father is not identical to the Son or the Holy Spirit.
  • The Son is not identical to the Father or the Holy Spirit
  • The Holy Spirit is not identical to the Son or to the Father.
    • They are not independent of each other they still belong to the same being.
• Since each is divine they share the attributes of deity.
  • God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  • The Father is God and not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
  • The Son is God but not the Father or Holy Spirit.
  • The Holy Spirit is God but not the Father or Son
• “Co-equal” fully shared the being that is God never one third.
• “ Coeternal” all three exist within eternity, one did not exist before the other.
  • God= what.
  • Three persons= who.
• Essence -is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.
• Existence - whereas the essence gives an answer to the question as to what the thing is, the existence is the affirmative to the question as to whether it is.
  • God is eternal, existence is of the essence of God,
  • Essence and existence are identical in God.
• Nature - is that whereby it acts as it does, the essence considered as the foundation and principle of its operation.
  • Love is a marker of God’s essence.
  • God’s nature is love.
• Being- signifies the substance of X, what makes X individual.
  • “Being” refers to the essential attributes that make God what He is,
    • holy
    • omnipresent
    • omniscient
    • immutable
    • omnipotent

Not Modalism one person with three personalities.

• One very common but mistaken analogy of the Trinity is water in a glass that can exist either as water, steam or ice. This is Modalism, which states that God is a single person, who reveals Himself in different forms or modes. This view states that that Father , Son, and HS never all exist at the same time, but rather it is the same being manifesting Himself as either of the three throughout history. Thus the idea of one glass, and within that glass the same measurement of H2O appearing in different forms.

Not Polytheism three separate beings.
At the other end of the spectrum is Polytheism which teaches three separate beings, each with their own personalities which are gods. Here we have three glasses of water, first holding water, second holding steam, third holding ice.

Trinity = three persons sharing the one Godhead.

• Therefore, we have one glass and within that one glass steam, water, and ice at the same time.
• God is a spirit thus not limited to the physical, eternally exists outside of time and space. He is not limited to time, space, and matter as we are.

Hope it helps.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

The Greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into English as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of. But the Greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the English “a”, or “an”. Often the Grammarians add the English indefinite articles “a” or “an” to give the proper sense of the passage, therefore pointing to an unidentifiable person, someone we do not have prior knowledge of. But this does not mean that every time a noun lacking the definite article occurs in the Greek text it should have an indefinite article in the translation. Depending on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea that the writer, translators render nouns lacking the definite article, either indefinite, definite, or none.

The gospel of John is intended to be read based on the thesis which is the first 18 verses, which is anchored on the first verse. If one believes that in the first verse, Jesus is God, then one reads the gospel from that point of view, but if one believes Jesus is a created being based on the first verse, then one will read the rest of the gospel based on that point of view. Therefore, the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1

Dissect vs 1 into a logical argument [premise 1] In the beginning was the Word, [premise 2] and the Word was with God, [conclusion] and the Word was God [or a god.] Therefore, premise 1 and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.

In the beginning, was (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν)[en- ar•khay eimi].

If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razor's edge, where one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razors edge is what John is opening to. John does not open referring to the beginning of Genesis but prior to it, in fact prior to time itself. Note this imaginary line relates to the eternal and the temporal, and not to the Genesis account of creation because creation is not mentioned until vs. 3. Notice where John places the Logos in reference to the beginning; if the Logos is a created being, then the Logos would be included in the ‘beginning’ or after. Using [ἦν eimi] “was”, which denotes absolute existence instead of [ἐγένετο, egeneto] “came into being”, or “began to be”, which is used in vs. 3, John is placing the Logos prior to the beginning. John is saying that the Logos absolutely existed prior to the beginning, and the only One who existed prior to the beginning is God in the eternal. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for John 1:1 is “the Word was God” not “was a god”.

Your Bible informs you that the words "in the beginning" do refer to a time PERIOD, a stretch of time.

But you have never care much for facts have you?

Any rebuttal should be able to support its position by using John 1:1 only.

Except for you, right? You get to do whatever you like.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Your Bible informs you that the words "in the beginning" do refer to a time PERIOD, a stretch of time.

But you have never care much for facts have you?

The length of time the beginning lapsed is irrelevant to the fact that when it commenced the Logos had been existing.

Except for you, right? You get to do whatever you like.

The argument in the post is solid. Now, if you are unable to post a rebuttal using John 1:1, we can entertain other verses.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

The Greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into English as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of. But the Greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the English “a”, or “an”. Often the Grammarians add the English indefinite articles “a” or “an” to give the proper sense of the passage, therefore pointing to an unidentifiable person, someone we do not have prior knowledge of. But this does not mean that every time a noun lacking the definite article occurs in the Greek text it should have an indefinite article in the translation. Depending on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea that the writer, translators render nouns lacking the definite article, either indefinite, definite, or none.

The gospel of John is intended to be read based on the thesis which is the first 18 verses, which is anchored on the first verse. If one believes that in the first verse, Jesus is God, then one reads the gospel from that point of view, but if one believes Jesus is a created being based on the first verse, then one will read the rest of the gospel based on that point of view. Therefore, the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1

Dissect vs 1 into a logical argument [premise 1] In the beginning was the Word, [premise 2] and the Word was with God, [conclusion] and the Word was God [or a god.] Therefore, premise 1 and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.

In the beginning, was (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν)[en- ar•khay eimi].

If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razor's edge, where one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razors edge is what John is opening to. John does not open referring to the beginning of Genesis but prior to it, in fact prior to time itself. Note this imaginary line relates to the eternal and the temporal, and not to the Genesis account of creation because creation is not mentioned until vs. 3. Notice where John places the Logos in reference to the beginning; if the Logos is a created being, then the Logos would be included in the ‘beginning’ or after. Using [ἦν eimi] “was”, which denotes absolute existence instead of [ἐγένετο, egeneto] “came into being”, or “began to be”, which is used in vs. 3, John is placing the Logos prior to the beginning. John is saying that the Logos absolutely existed prior to the beginning, and the only One who existed prior to the beginning is God in the eternal. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for John 1:1 is “the Word was God” not “was a god”.

Any rebuttal should be able to support its position by using John 1:1 only.

You trins want to argue that there are many cases where God is being spoken of where there is no definite article and that is true but in those other cases, you don't have one who is called god without the article who is with another who is called The God with the article and that makes all the difference in the world.

By the way, I am not a Jehovah's Witness and neither do I believe it should read "and the word was a god" either.

However, I believe that the word god without the articles needs to be defined by what the word Logos includes in its definition and not what it doesn't include, for it is referring to God only as defined by what the word Logos includes in its definition.

Therefore, it is the definition of the word Logos that must determine for us in what way John is telling us that the Logos was God and there is nothing in the definition of the word Logos where we could ever get the idea that John was speaking of another person of God's being, for that is not what the word means at all.

I also believe that if John really wanted to tell us that God was more than one single person, he would have done so and very easily also and he would have also used the definite article in both cases in John 1 and being a monotheist he would have had to also.

For like I said, while it is not always necessary when only speaking of one God, it is when two are being mentioned in the same single passage, if however, it is really speaking of two persons who are the same same single God.

 

[Towerwatchman]

However, I believe that the word god without the articles needs to be defined by what the word Logos includes in its definition and not what it doesn't include, for it is referring to God only as defined by what the word Logos includes in its definition.

Therefore, it is the definition of the word Logos that must determine for us in what way John is telling us that the Logos was God and there is nothing in the definition of the word Logos where we could ever get the idea that John was speaking of another person of God's being, for that is not what the word means at all.

Your close. John's audience would have been Hellenistic Greeks. That is why he identifies Jesus as Logos.
The Greek’s believed that everything pre existed as a thought and then came into existence. Logos was that divine reason or thought which created the physical world and causes the natural world to grow. John comes along and says that he knows the Logos and that it is not a thought but a person. That for the Logos thought to exist it had to have a thinker and that thinker was Jesus. This would have caught the attention of every Hellenistic thinker in his bishopric. Not only does he identify the “Logos” to them but in the following verses John gives the “logos” a name, human qualities and affections making Jesus conceivable to them. If we substitute John’s interpretation of Logos for Word in John 1:1 we read the following. “In the beginning was “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought”, and “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought” was with God, and “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought” was God. Just as Paul connected the “Unknown God” on Mars Hill in Athens with YHWH God, John connects the Greek “Logos” with Jesus Christ as God. According to the Greeks “Logos” is not a created being but the origin of creation.

I also believe that if John really wanted to tell us that God was more than one single person, he would have done so and very easily also and he would have also used the definite article in both cases in John 1 and being a monotheist he would have had to also.

Without the definite article its depends on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea that the writer, translators render nouns lacking the definite article, either indefinite, definite, or none.
It should be noted that in the John “God” is capitalized, therefore translated as articular [with the definite article] even though being anarthrous [not having the definite article] in John 1:6,12,13,18, 3:2,21, 9:33. No one seems to argue these verses. Or better yet within the New Testament “God” appears 282 times anarthrous, of which it translates the anarthrous as articular 266 times as "God" and the remaining 16 times as anarthrous translating theos as either god, a god, gods, and godly.

For like I said, while it is not always necessary when only speaking of one God, it is when two are being mentioned in the same single passage, if however, it is really speaking of two persons who are the same same single God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Notice.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
John is being emphatic about Jesus being with God and separate from God in the beginning by repeating Jn 1a,b as vs 2

 

[Yahchristian]

John is being emphatic about Jesus being with God and separate from God in the beginning

Ummm...

Orthodox Trinitarians do NOT say SEPARATE.

So just to clarify YOUR Trinitarian view...

Are you saying Jesus AS GOD was separate from God?

Or are you saying Jesus AS A MAN was separate from God.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Your close. John's audience would have been Hellenistic Greeks. That is why he identifies Jesus as Logos.
The Greek’s believed that everything pre existed as a thought and then came into existence. Logos was that divine reason or thought which created the physical world and causes the natural world to grow. John comes along and says that he knows the Logos and that it is not a thought but a person. That for the Logos thought to exist it had to have a thinker and that thinker was Jesus. This would have caught the attention of every Hellenistic thinker in his bishopric. Not only does he identify the “Logos” to them but in the following verses John gives the “logos” a name, human qualities and affections making Jesus conceivable to them. If we substitute John’s interpretation of Logos for Word in John 1:1 we read the following. “In the beginning was “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought”, and “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought” was with God, and “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought” was God. Just as Paul connected the “Unknown God” on Mars Hill in Athens with YHWH God, John connects the Greek “Logos” with Jesus Christ as God. According to the Greeks “Logos” is not a created being but the origin of creation.

Sorry but that is not correct, for the Greeks in their philosophy also figuratively personified the Logos and just like the Jews did with their version the Memra.

However, it is a personification just like in proverbs the wisdom of God is personified as a wise woman but it is not to be taken literally.

Also, there was no Jesus Christ until the personification of the Divine thought was made a real living person as Jesus Christ and that is what John was using the word Logos to reveal unto them.

Without the definite article its depends on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea that the writer, translators render nouns lacking the definite article, either indefinite, definite, or none.
It should be noted that in the John “God” is capitalized, therefore translated as articular [with the definite article] even though being anarthrous [not having the definite article] in John 1:6,12,13,18, 3:2,21, 9:33. No one seems to argue these verses. Or better yet within the New Testament “God” appears 282 times anarthrous, of which it translates the anarthrous as articular 266 times as "God" and the remaining 16 times as anarthrous translating theos as either god, a god, gods, and godly.

Again, you cannot compare those other verses where there is no article for God with John 1:1 and for the simple fact that those other verses do not mention two and one with the other that are both identified by the Greek word for God.

For John being a monotheist Jew, he would have had to use the article if indeed he was truly revealing two persons who were both the same single God.

Furthermore, if we were to take the trin version of this text as the correct one, then actually John would be revealing two individual gods, one with the other and not one single god who is two persons and there is no way that John being a monotheistic Jew could have meant for this to be taken that way.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Notice.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
John is being emphatic about Jesus being with God and separate from God in the beginning by repeating Jn 1a,b as vs 2

He was with God as a figurative personification of God's thought and reason and not as another or second living person of God's being like what you are falsely believing and teaching about this.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Your close. John's audience would have been Hellenistic Greeks. That is why he identifies Jesus as Logos.
The Greek’s believed that everything pre existed as a thought and then came into existence. Logos was that divine reason or thought which created the physical world and causes the natural world to grow. John comes along and says that he knows the Logos and that it is not a thought but a person. That for the Logos thought to exist it had to have a thinker and that thinker was Jesus. This would have caught the attention of every Hellenistic thinker in his bishopric. Not only does he identify the “Logos” to them but in the following verses John gives the “logos” a name, human qualities and affections making Jesus conceivable to them. If we substitute John’s interpretation of Logos for Word in John 1:1 we read the following. “In the beginning was “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought”, and “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought” was with God, and “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought” was God. Just as Paul connected the “Unknown God” on Mars Hill in Athens with YHWH God, John connects the Greek “Logos” with Jesus Christ as God. According to the Greeks “Logos” is not a created being but the origin of creation.

Without the definite article its depends on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea that the writer, translators render nouns lacking the definite article, either indefinite, definite, or none.
It should be noted that in the John “God” is capitalized, therefore translated as articular [with the definite article] even though being anarthrous [not having the definite article] in John 1:6,12,13,18, 3:2,21, 9:33. No one seems to argue these verses. Or better yet within the New Testament “God” appears 282 times anarthrous, of which it translates the anarthrous as articular 266 times as "God" and the remaining 16 times as anarthrous translating theos as either god, a god, gods, and godly.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Notice.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
John is being emphatic about Jesus being with God and separate from God in the beginning by repeating Jn 1a,b as vs 2

Are you aware of what even Tertullian wrote about the Logos in "against Praxeus 5 below.

Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is:

Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind …
Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (Against Praxeas 5)


Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity.

God, according to the early churches, has always had logos inside of him.

By the way, if you will click on the bold blue in brackets above, it is a link to the whole writing of Tertullian on this.

I find it interesting also that the trinitarian source that I took this from says what he does in the italic and especial the last sentence, for he says that the early church understood that God always had Logos inside of himself and which means that Logos is only God in that it belongs to God's nature and is referring to his logic and reason and thinking.

I also find it interesting how Tertullian understood what the word "pros" was meaning in the prologue, for it is about God reciprocating with his own thinking = The Logos and just like we do who are created in God's own image and therefore it isn't referring to another person but rather God's thought towards himself about his future human Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Ummm...

Orthodox Trinitarians do NOT say SEPARATE.

So just to clarify YOUR Trinitarian view...

Are you saying Jesus AS GOD was separate from God?

Or are you saying Jesus AS A MAN was separate from God.

Thankyou. My response was ambiguous and needs clarification.

• They are three distinct persons.
  • The Father is not identical to the Son or the Holy Spirit.
  • The Son is not identical to the Father or the Holy Spirit
  • The Holy Spirit is not identical to the Son or to the Father.
    • They are not independent of each other they still belong to the same being.
• Since each is divine they share the attributes of deity.
  • God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  • The Father is God and not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
  • The Son is God but not the Father or Holy Spirit.
  • The Holy Spirit is God but not the Father or Son
• “Co-equal” fully shared the being that is God never one third.
• “ Coeternal” all three exist within eternity, one did not exist before the other.
  • God= what.
  • Three persons= who.

John is being emphatic about Jesus,
the center of self-consciousness
who is God,
who exist within the being God,
abiding in the eternal with the Father and HS
who are also God,
and also exist within the being God,
as separate but not independent
free will self-consciousnesses
in the beginning
by repeating Jn 1a,b as vs 2

God Bless

 

[Towerwatchman]

Sorry but that is not correct, for the Greeks in their philosophy also figuratively personified the Logos and just like the Jews did with their version the Memra.

Are you aware that memar appears twice in the Bible? Find the definition below. I do not see how you can build an argument on one word found twice in the Bible with its translation. The proper word is dabar with the definition

3983 מֵאמַר [me’mar /may·mar/] n m. Corresponding to 3982; TWOT 2585a; GK 10397; Two occurrences; AV translates as “appointment” once, and “word” once. 1 word, command.

Ezra 6:9 And whatever they need—young bulls, rams, and lambs for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the request of the priests who are in Jerusalem—let it be given them day by day without fail,

Da. 4:17 "This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers And the decision is a command of the holy ones, In order * that the living may know That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, And bestows it on whom * He wishes And sets over it the lowliest of men."

I believe you are referring to dabar.

1697 דָּבָר [dabar /daw·baw/] n m. From 1696; TWOT 399a; GK 1821; 1439 occurrences; AV translates as “word” 807 times, “thing” 231 times, “matter” 63 times, “acts” 51 times, “chronicles” 38 times, “saying” 25 times, “commandment” 20 times, and translated miscellaneously 204 times. 1 speech, word, speaking, thing. 1a speech. 1b saying, utterance. 1c word, words. 1d business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner (by extension).

The word “dabar” occurs some 1455 times in various contexts in the Hebrew Bible. It is sometimes used in reference to the "Divine Word": "Dabar Yahweh" or “Ha-Dabar Elohim”. The Divine Word brings God's message to his people, especially to his prophets. The phrase appears for the first time in Genesis 15, in which the Word of Yahweh assures Abraham of his reward. In legal contexts it means dispute (Ex. 18:16, 19 accusation, verdict, claim, transfer and provision, request, and decree. The rabbinical schools at that time taught that the Word was the image and likeness of God, the universe was created by God through the Word, the Word was God’s first and oldest creation, the Word was a separate being from Elohim, the Word had not descended to Earth, and had the Word a need for a body of flesh.

However, it is a personification just like in proverbs the wisdom of God is personified as a wise woman but it is not to be taken literally.

Here you are stating that Logos is a personification of X

Also, there was no Jesus Christ until the personification of the Divine thought was made a real living person as Jesus Christ and that is what John was using the word Logos to reveal unto them.

Here you are stating that Jesus is a personification of Logos. Following the trail who is Jesus a personification of?

Thoughts are abstract. Jesus is concrete.
Abstract concepts are effete or impotent.
Concrete objects can cause effects in the world;
How can Logos be considered abstract [divine thought], if it caused the universe to come into existence. Notice abstract cannot be the cause of anything. Logos has to be concrete. You cannot make Logos abstract with concrete attributes.

Again, you cannot compare those other verses where there is no article for God with John 1:1 and for the simple fact that those other verses do not mention two and one with the other that are both identified by the Greek word for God.

How many individuals are spoken of in the passage is irrelevant. You brought up the grammar and following the grammar used by John in the immediate text John 1:6,12,13,18, Theos minus the definite article is translated as Theos.

For John being a monotheist Jew, he would have had to use the article if indeed he was truly revealing two persons who were both the same single God.

“Was with God” (πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν/eimi- pros- ho- theh·os ).
“With” (πρός/pros) does not convey the full meaning, because there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition [links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence] {πρός /pros}, denotes motion towards, or direction, the Word is oriented toward God; is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. [Strongs]
The idea is that both Jesus and God are facing each other in the beginning.

He was with God as a figurative personification of God's thought and reason and not as another or second living person of God's being like what you are falsely believing and teaching about this.

Nothing in the passage supports this. Actually makes no sense. If I am correct you stated Jesus the personification of Logos which is the personification of God.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Are you aware of what even Tertullian wrote about the Logos in "against Praxeus 5 below.

Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is:

Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind …
Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (Against Praxeas 5)


Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity.

God, according to the early churches, has always had logos inside of him.

By the way, if you will click on the bold blue in brackets above, it is a link to the whole writing of Tertullian on this.

I find it interesting also that the trinitarian source that I took this from says what he does in the italic and especial the last sentence, for he says that the early church understood that God always had Logos inside of himself and which means that Logos is only God in that it belongs to God's nature and is referring to his logic and reason and thinking.

I also find it interesting how Tertullian understood what the word "pros" was meaning in the prologue, for it is about God reciprocating with his own thinking = The Logos and just like we do who are created in God's own image and therefore it isn't referring to another person but rather God's thought towards himself about his future human Son Jesus Christ.

Unity is not uniformity. My belief in the Trinity is from Scripture not Tertullian. We agree there is a Trinity, but not on every point.
Thanks

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Unity is not uniformity. My belief in the Trinity is from Scripture not Tertullian. We agree there is a Trinity, but not on every point.
Thanks

That is irrelevant to the point I was making by using what Tertullian stated however.

For the point was that his writings on John 1:1 proves that Tertullian wasn't ignorant to the true definition of the Logos and also how the word "pros" was also being used in John 1:1.

For he reveals that he understood that God was thinking "pros" towards himself.

It also proves how the trinity doctrine was falsely fabricated by the early apostates within the church, and whether you like it or not, Tertullian was considered one of the founders of the trinity doctrine.

Furthermore, you didn't get your doctrine from the scriptures but from the fabrication of years and years of the scriptures being adulterated by men who had substituted truth by the Holy Spirit with their own wayward carnal human reasoning.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Are you aware that memar appears twice in the Bible? Find the definition below. I do not see how you can build an argument on one word found twice in the Bible with its translation. The proper word is dabar with the definition

3983 מֵאמַר [me’mar /may·mar/] n m. Corresponding to 3982; TWOT 2585a; GK 10397; Two occurrences; AV translates as “appointment” once, and “word” once. 1 word, command.

Ezra 6:9 And whatever they need—young bulls, rams, and lambs for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the request of the priests who are in Jerusalem—let it be given them day by day without fail,

Da. 4:17 "This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers And the decision is a command of the holy ones, In order * that the living may know That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, And bestows it on whom * He wishes And sets over it the lowliest of men."

I believe you are referring to dabar.

1697 דָּבָר [dabar /daw·baw/] n m. From 1696; TWOT 399a; GK 1821; 1439 occurrences; AV translates as “word” 807 times, “thing” 231 times, “matter” 63 times, “acts” 51 times, “chronicles” 38 times, “saying” 25 times, “commandment” 20 times, and translated miscellaneously 204 times. 1 speech, word, speaking, thing. 1a speech. 1b saying, utterance. 1c word, words. 1d business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner (by extension).

The word “dabar” occurs some 1455 times in various contexts in the Hebrew Bible. It is sometimes used in reference to the "Divine Word": "Dabar Yahweh" or “Ha-Dabar Elohim”. The Divine Word brings God's message to his people, especially to his prophets. The phrase appears for the first time in Genesis 15, in which the Word of Yahweh assures Abraham of his reward. In legal contexts it means dispute (Ex. 18:16, 19 accusation, verdict, claim, transfer and provision, request, and decree. The rabbinical schools at that time taught that the Word was the image and likeness of God, the universe was created by God through the Word, the Word was God’s first and oldest creation, the Word was a separate being from Elohim, the Word had not descended to Earth, and had the Word a need for a body of flesh.

No, I am talking about the Jewish philosophical personification of the Memra and I am not talking about what is actual found in the scriptures, for they didn't get it from the scriptures.

Here you are stating that Logos is a personification of X

I said nothing about X but rather that the Logos by it's own definition revolves around Gods thought and reason or his Logic either spoken or unspoken and that is what is being personified and John most likely used this this to reveal God's plan and foreknowledge of Jesus the same way that Paul used the "the alter to the unknown god" to reveal the true God.

Here you are stating that Jesus is a personification of Logos. Following the trail who is Jesus a personification of?

No, I never said that Jesus was a personification but only that the Logos was to the Greek and Hebrew philosophers and that John used their philosophy to reveal who Jesus was and that he was in God's plan and foreknowledge before God created the world.

Jesus is no personification but rather a real tangible living and now glorified human being.

Thoughts are abstract. Jesus is concrete.

Yes and you just said it right above, because the word Logos by its very definition revolves around the thinking and reasoning and logic, but when the Logos was made flesh, it was no longer and abstract but rather a real living human being with the name and title of Jesus Christ.

All that John is saying in his prologue is that God's divine Logic became a living human being and that this human being was in his plan and foreknowledge before the world began and that it was through what he would send Jesus to do, that he went ahead and created all things knowing as he did in advance that sin would corrupt it.

Abstract concepts are effete or impotent.
Concrete objects can cause effects in the world;
How can Logos be considered abstract [divine thought], if it caused the universe to come into existence. Notice abstract cannot be the cause of anything. Logos has to be concrete. You cannot make Logos abstract with concrete attributes.

How many individuals are spoken of in the passage is irrelevant. You brought up the grammar and following the grammar used by John in the immediate text John 1:6,12,13,18, Theos minus the definite article is translated as Theos.

“Was with God” (πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν/eimi- pros- ho- theh·os ).
“With” (πρός/pros) does not convey the full meaning, because there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition [links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence] {πρός /pros}, denotes motion towards, or direction, the Word is oriented toward God; is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. [Strongs]
The idea is that both Jesus and God are facing each other in the beginning.

Nothing in the passage supports this. Actually makes no sense. If I am correct you stated Jesus the personification of Logos which is the personification of God.

Of course, for just as Tertullian admitted, God's Logos always existed inside of himself just like ours does also and that God reciprocates "pros" with his Logos just like we who are made in his image do likewise every day of our lives and all through the day also.

Tertullian's words reveal that he was not completely ignorant about what John was revealing in his prologue and therefore he was guilty of twisting that which was made known unto him by God into something coming from his own human reasoning about it and quite like what Paul said in Romans 1 below.


Romans 1:
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.



You will notice also that I bolded the last verse above and the reason why I did this, is because it is actually what you have done with your false idea that God became a moral human being in Jesus Christ who who could be subject to suffering and death.

 

[johnny guitar]

Your Bible informs you that the words "in the beginning" do refer to a time PERIOD, a stretch of time.

But you have never care much for facts have you?



Except for you, right? You get to do whatever you like.

So The Word was in the beginning of creation and was creating everything.

 

[Yahchristian]

So The Word was in the beginning of creation and was creating everything.

Yes.

"In the beginning" in John 1:1 refers to "in the beginning" in Genesis 1:1.

What do YOU believe "in the beginning" in John 1:1 refers to?

 

[johnny guitar]

Yes.

"In the beginning" in John 1:1 refers to "in the beginning" in Genesis 1:1.

What do YOU believe "in the beginning" in John 1:1 refers to?

The beginning of the universe.