Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

Towerwatchman

Active member
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 1and 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 on one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razor's 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

Well-known member
Nothing in the text suggests that the first "God" is distinct from the "second.'

God Bless
TWM

I agree !!!

Whereas others believe the first “God” refers to a Person who is not the second “God”.

They believe the first “God” refers to the first Person of the Trinity but the second “God” refers to the second Person of the Trinity.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Gasp, wow, those evil Trinitarians think the Father is NOT Jesus like Jesus said.

Wouldn't saying "God was with God" be pretty redundant, as well as "God was God."
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
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 1and 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 on one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razor's 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.
I've read your post and can't figure out whether you believe Jesus was always God ..or was created...or became a God.
 

101G

Well-known member
I've read your post and can't figure out whether you believe Jesus was always God ..or was created...or became a God.
if I may, the OP is telling US that Jesus is the FIRST, (GOD), the Ordinal First, and the Last (GOD), the Last in Ordinal designation. as said, Ordinal Numbers Identify A. PLACE, B. TIME, C. RANK, and D. ORDER. and the Order here is "First" and "Last". or as the OP said, First and Second. which second states LAST, for there is none after the second, hence the Last.

hope that helps,

PICJAG, 101G.
 

101G

Well-known member
Therefore premise 1and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.
well a "god", is eliminated, supportive scripture, Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

well God himself clarify the account in John 1:1. he makes it clear, that NO small case "g" god is "WITH" him. and also that he is a singularity in PERSON. for if another, (G243) was "WITH", God that person is definitly he himself in the ECHAD as Deuteronomy 6:4, Genesis 1:1, and Revelation 1:1 CLEARLY STATES.

so the Grammer in John 1:1 is correct, and straight forward in Context.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

Stephen

Active member
Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

Let's see if this is a genuine request.

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

If I interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1, the first thing I notice is that Jesus isn't mentioned in 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 1and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.


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

By inspection, John 1:1 has no "if" and "therefore" type words. It is therefore self evident that John 1:1 is not a logical argument as the OP wishes to interpret the verse as being.

If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razor's edge, where on one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razor's 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.

The word "prior to time itself" aren't in John 1:1, and thus are figments of the OPs imagination. The words used are "in the beginning".

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”.

I suppose that if you haven't ever bothered to read Genesis 1:2 and noticed that there are several things that existed "in the beginning" before God acts, you could make a claim about God being the only one who existed "prior to the beginning". However, since Genesis 1:1-2 isn't John 1:1, even that piece of information isn't interpreting John 1:1 by John 1:1.

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

The rebuttal is that the OP isn't "using John 1:1 only" and the request wasn't genuine.
 

jamesh

Active member
well a "god", is eliminated, supportive scripture, Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

well God himself clarify the account in John 1:1. he makes it clear, that NO small case "g" god is "WITH" him. and also that he is a singularity in PERSON. for if another, (G243) was "WITH", God that person is definitly he himself in the ECHAD as Deuteronomy 6:4, Genesis 1:1, and Revelation 1:1 CLEARLY STATES.

so the Grammer in John 1:1 is correct, and straight forward in Context.

PICJAG, 101G.
Since your "oneness" you really have not thought what you said above through. Deuteronomy 32:39 has nothing to do with John 1:1 as you state. The only thing you got right is "No small case "g" god or as the JW's posit "a god." That is not in the text of John 1:1. You need to read the context, especially as it relates to Deuteronomy 32:39.

Look at Deuteronomy 32:12, "The Lord alone guided him, And there was no foreign god with him." God is the true God in "opposition" to all false gods, that was the point being made in the whole chapter considering what the Jews were doing.

Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts; I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." And Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Please reconcile these verse with John 1:3, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14. Who is the person with God and was God at John 1:3 that did the following? "All things came into being by Him, and apart (or WITHOUT Him) NOTHING came into being that has come into being." Now, let me show you how your argument has no merit. The Greek word for "with" is "pros." So if your with a person you can't be that person, this is simple logic. Just out of curiosity can you please give me the definition of the word "being," and the word, "person."

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

civic

Well-known member
Let's see if this is a genuine request.



If I interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1, the first thing I notice is that Jesus isn't mentioned in John 1:1.



By inspection, John 1:1 has no "if" and "therefore" type words. It is therefore self evident that John 1:1 is not a logical argument as the OP wishes to interpret the verse as being.



The word "prior to time itself" aren't in John 1:1, and thus are figments of the OPs imagination. The words used are "in the beginning".



I suppose that if you haven't ever bothered to read Genesis 1:2 and noticed that there are several things that existed "in the beginning" before God acts, you could make a claim about God being the only one who existed "prior to the beginning". However, since Genesis 1:1-2 isn't John 1:1, even that piece of information isn't interpreting John 1:1 by John 1:1.



The rebuttal is that the OP isn't "using John 1:1 only" and the request wasn't genuine.
ets begin at the very first part of verse 1a.

In the beginning was the Word.
en arche en ho logos
εν αρχη ην ο λογος

the phrase "in the beginning" is "en arche". Now if you look in the Septuagint at Genesis 1:1 we find this:
εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος

Now the question we need to ask ourselves is what does in the beginning mean ? One must always remember that context always determines the meaning of words and phrases. If we compare Genesis with John which is exactly what John is doing in his opening to his gospel we can clearly see his point. Moses and John both are discussing the creation of "all things". That makes the passages parallel. Here a some parallels to consider:

1- in the beginning
2- Theos( God) appears in both opening verses
3- Both talk about the creation of all things
4- both use egeneto εγενετο, came into being or existence
5- both use and contrast light and darkness

εν αρχη refers to the beginning of time. Now if John didn't mean the beginning of time he could of easily used another word that he often used which would be the word from"apo" instead of en. He could of also used the phrase came into being(egeneto) to refer to the Word in 1a but he did not. John made it very clear that the Word in his gospel is equal to the God in Genesis.

Now lets look at the verb was"en". This is in the imperfect tense meaning continuous existence. By its very definition it has the meaning of eternal, without beginning. Therefor the Words existence transcends time and is eternal. Here is Dr. Robertson below:


In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1 . But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse Genesis 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Genesis 8:58 "before Abraham came (genesqai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence).

From here we can now look to see who the Word is in John 1:1.
Now that we have established the meaning of the beginning in John 1:1a we can move on to the identity of the Word.

Whoever the Word is , He was alongside God (with Him) and was God. But how can the Word be with God and also be God? Lets examine 1b The Word was with God. John here is making a distinction between the Word and God. The Word existed eternally with God, for the Word (logos) ‎was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros ‎with the accusative shows equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. This clearly reveals a relationship between the logos and theon in 1b. In (Moulton and Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament)"the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" is used to speak of the relationship between the logos and God.

The Word was God- και θεος ην ο λογος . Theos here is without the article. It is predicative and describes the nature of the Word. The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God. If “o theos” had been written then it would mean that no divine being existed outside of the Word. Johns whole gospel comes forth from this verse. The Word is who his gospel is written about and as we will see the words and deeds of Jesus are the words and deeds of God.

John 1:14 and the Word became flesh- και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο. Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai which means came into existence, He became flesh. The Word in one single event is history became man as opposed to “eimi” being or always existed. So we can clearly see the Word who is eternal came into existence in the flesh at a single point in time .

Now if we read further in John we can see that the Word dwelt among us (tabernacled).The Word entering a new mode of existence, became flesh, and lived in a tent (His physical body-a tabernacle) among us. And we beheld His glory.
This Word John the Baptist identifies as Jesus.
15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.

John 1:29-31
29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30"This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.
 

Stephen

Active member
ets begin at the very first part of verse 1a.

In the beginning was the Word.
en arche en ho logos
εν αρχη ην ο λογος

the phrase "in the beginning" is "en arche". Now if you look in the Septuagint at Genesis 1:1 we find this:
εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος

I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to read the title of the thread.

Now the question we need to ask ourselves is what does in the beginning mean ?

Nope. The first thing we need to ask ourselves can Civic interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1? That's the titular request.


One must always remember that context always determines the meaning of words and phrases.

The context we are supposed to use is given in the title. "Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1."


If we compare Genesis with John which is exactly what John is doing in his opening to his gospel we can clearly see his point

.
.
.
.

Please read the title of the thread as it appears that you haven't. I'll repeat it here for you: "Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1".

Each and every scripture you brought to bear to explain John 1:1 is a unique and independent verification that you were unable to read and understand the title, the first 5 words of the thread, and the request at the bottom of the original post, and a fact mentioned many times in the post you are quoting.


May I suggest that if you wish people to read your posts, that you give some sort of indication that you have read and understood the posts you are responding to. As it is, there is no indication that you were able to do so.
 

civic

Well-known member
I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to read the title of the thread.



Nope. The first thing we need to ask ourselves can Civic interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1? That's the titular request.




The context we are supposed to use is given in the title. "Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1."




Please read the title of the thread as it appears that you haven't. I'll repeat it here for you: "Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1".

Each and every scripture you brought to bear to explain John 1:1 is a unique and independent verification that you were unable to read and understand the title, the first 5 words of the thread, and the request at the bottom of the original post, and a fact mentioned many times in the post you are quoting.


May I suggest that if you wish people to read your posts, that you give some sort of indication that you have read and understood the posts you are responding to. As it is, there is no indication that you were able to do so.
I responded to your post not the OP. Plus John 1:1 parallels Genesis 1:1: Same beginning , same God.

BTW you don’t make the rules but nice try anyways .

next…….
 

Stephen

Active member
I responded to your post not the OP.

You can't honestly say that you "responded" to my post as you weren't addressing anything in my post, which may have eluded you, but was about interpreting John 1:1 by John 1:1 per the op request.

You just copied and pasted the same foolish slabs of stuff you paste all over the web. For example:

Plus John 1:1 parallels Genesis 1:1: Same beginning , same God.

What has this got to do with my post, which was about interpreting John 1:1 by John 1:1 per the op request?

next…….

I suppose you have to say things like this.
 

civic

Well-known member
You can't honestly say that you "responded" to my post as you weren't addressing anything in my post, which may have eluded you, but was about interpreting John 1:1 by John 1:1 per the op request.

You just copied and pasted the same foolish slabs of stuff you paste all over the web. For example:



What has this got to do with my post, which was about interpreting John 1:1 by John 1:1 per the op request?



I suppose you have to say things like this.
It’s my work so what ?

Who made you the forum PI ?

Typical unitarian evasion on your part. As usual it’s nothing but a waste of time with you. Some things never change and you have to say things like that right Steve .

Oh and you are not as good as you think. You missed my thread on another forum .
 

jamesh

Active member
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 1and 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 on one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razor's 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.
I know exactly what your saying Tower and let me add a little "clarity" on this issue first as it relates to John 1:1. The definite article has been supplied. The actual Greek is "en arche, that is, "in beginning." The Genesis 1:1 beginning starts the same way, "in beginning." Here is the important point in all of this.

John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. Like I said both verses start out the same. Yet the main thought in Genesis 1:1 is on WHAT HAPPENED "in the beginning," and the emphasis on John 1:1 is on WHO EXISTED "in the beginning." In other words, the John 1:1 in the beginning "antecedes" or comes before the Genesis 1:1 beginning.

Now, in dealing with the word "the" and the word "a/an" there is a difference in meaning as you said. The chief grammatical function of "an" (or a) is to connote a thing NOT previously noted or recognized. While "the" connotes a thing PREVIOSLY noted or recognized. The best example of this is when I talk about "the" angel of the Lord where he first appears as the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16:7 and I'm convinced he's the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ according to the evidence. He's also mentioned in numerous places in the Bible, specifically in the Old Testament. He never appears in the New Testament.

At Acts 12:7 we read, "And behold "an" angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell etc. We do not know who this angel is based on the wording, "an angel" suddenly appeared. So the long and the short of this issue is at John 1:1, In the beginning was "the Word denotes "the" Word existed before the Genesis 1:1 beginning who was not only with God but is God.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

101G

Well-known member
Since your "oneness"
thanks for the reply, but I'm Diversified Oneness.
Deuteronomy 32:39 has nothing to do with John 1:1 as you state. The only thing you got right is "No small case "g" god or as the JW's posit "a god." That is not in the text of John 1:1. You need to read the context, especially as it relates to Deuteronomy 32:39.
I believe so, which eliminated anyone as God, which Isa 44:6: also do with the cap "G", which certify John 1:1c.
Please reconcile these verse with John 1:3
sure, Isaiah 44:24 as to who, "Made all thing| Jesus the Ordinal First.
Please reconcile these verse with , Colossians 1:15, Who is the person with God and was God at John 1:3
sure, Rom 5:14: "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
Please reconcile these verse with Hebrews 1:10 . Who is the person with God and was God at John 1:3 that did the following?
sure, Heb 1:10: "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:"
answer, Isa 51:13: "And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?"
the LORD is the Lord diversified in Flesh
Please reconcile these verse with Revelation 3:14. Who is the person with God and was God at John 1:3 that did the following?
Rev 3:14: "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;"
Answer, right in Rev 3 it self, listen, Rev 3:22: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."
is not GOD a, a, a, a, Spirit? yes, pere John 4:24, and there is only one Spirit...... yes, JESUS, the Lord is that ONE "SPIRIT.
now as for the term "WITH" God as I have demonstrated, it's the same one person, which is bible backed, and is Diversified Oneness central doctrine.

thanks for the reply,

PICJAG, 101G
 
Top