Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

[Towerwatchman]

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."

A shallow understanding of the Trinity.

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 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

May I suggest you have an understanding of what you criticize before you do.

 

[Towerwatchman]

I've read your post and can't figure out whether you believe Jesus was always God ..or was created...or became a God.

I believe Jesus has always been God.

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 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

 

[Towerwatchman]

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.

Suggest you read the OP again. The four renderings of ‘first’ are referring to verses. Also ‘second’ is not found in the OP. The above is nonsense.

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

Since you brought up the Shema let’s address the Shema but first, let’s address Elohym which we find in Deuteronomy 6:4

Elohym: There are several ways to make a word plural in Hebrew. One way is to add hiym to the ending. Note Abram = father of people, changed to Abahym = father of peoples. Cherub one angel, cherubim many angels. “Elowahh” translates to God 52 times and its plural form “elohiym” is used 2347 times referring to YHWH God. In Genesis 1:1-26 we read that God was in the beginning and that He created this, He created that, and that He called them good. In all 26 verses, God translates from elohiym. In vs. 26 God said, “Let us make…” The Triune Council created man. When God said “Let us make…”, “us” could not have been any others, such as angels, for all others were created by God and only God creates. In Genesis, the Triune Council is in the beginning, and in John “Logos” is alongside God. [Plurality]

• SHEMA
  • Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God [Elohim], the Lord is one [Ehad]!”
    • This is part of the Shema, which was recited by the Jews twice a day, one in the morning and once in the evening. This confession of monotheism does not preclude the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. God is in plural form “Elohim” and implies the Trinity and “one” “ehad” implies unity.
      • “Ehad” means a united one; Adam and Eve were one “ehad” flesh. Our church is one “ehad” church.
      • If Moses wanted to state that God is a singular God he would have used “yahid” which means singular one as in one chair, or one table.
      • The Jews of the Old Testament were reciting their creed which spoke volumes of the Trinity.
        • [Plurality and unity of one]

I believe so, which eliminated anyone as God, which Isa 44:6: also do with the cap "G", which certify John 1:1c.

By citing Isa 44:6 you shot yourself in the foot. Remember Hebrew trumps English. So how would you reconcile Deut. 32:39 where God states there is no other God, and Isa 44:6 where God identifies Himself ‘The King of Israel’ and someone else ‘The Lord of Host’ as YWHW?

TWO IDENTIFIED AS YHWH = SAME VERSE

• Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, : I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}
  • In the original “Lord” is translated from YHWH therefore this verse reads. “Thus says YHWH the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, YHWH, Lord of host, I am the First and I am the Last, Besides Me the is no God.
  • Hebrew read right to left; here left to right for simplicity.
    • כֹּֽה ־אָמַ֨ר יְהוָ֧ה מֶֽלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְגֹאֲלֹ֖ו גָּאַל יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת אֲנִ֤י רִאשׁוֹן֙ וַאֲנִ֣י אַחֲר֔וֹן וּמִבַּלְעָדַ֖י אֵ֥ין אֱלֹהִֽים׃
    • This כֹּֽה saysאָמַ֨ר Yahweh יְהוָ֧ה the King מֶֽלֶךְIsrael יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל and וְגֹאֲלֹ֖ו Redeemer גָּאַל Yahweh יְהוָ֣ה Lord of host, צְבָא֑וֹת I am אֲנִ֤י the First אַחֲר֔וֹן…
      • Two individuals identified as God by the name ‘YHWH”.
      • God is plurality and singularity

sure, Isaiah 44:24 as to who, "Made all thing| Jesus the Ordinal First.

Yes, Jesus made all things, but nothing in Scripture or the ECF suggests that Jesus is the “Ordinal” First. Suggest you respond with a logical and reasonable explanation vs Oneness jargon.

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."

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

Notice how you quote Heb 1:10 but seem to miss vs 8 and 9.

Heb 1:8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”


Heb 1:8

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν• ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ

to but the son the throne of you the God into the age of the

αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

age and the rod of the straightness rod of the kingdom of you



Heb 1:9

ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν • διὰ τοῦτο

You loved rightness and you hated lawlessness through this

ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς

anointed you the God the God of you oil of gladness along the

μετόχους σου.

shares of you

Notice one individual ‘the Father’ identified as God ‘ho theos’ is speaking to another individual ‘the Son’ identified as God ‘ho theos’.

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

Wrong, a total lack of grammatical understanding.

"And the Logos was with God."

With translates from pros.

A strengthened form of G4253; a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward (with the genitive case the side of, that is, pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, that is, near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, that is, whither or for which it is predicated): - about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In compounds it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.



Pros is movement or direction or intent or pertaining to a bringing to face to face or disclosure of who God is.
John is stating that Jesus and God were face to face in eternity. Unless Jesus was holding up a mirror your worldview fails.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Or oneness

A Trinitarian.

 

[Towerwatchman]

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.

The subject in John 1:1 is the “Logos” who is then identified as Jesus. Similar to writing, “First thing I notice is that Biden isn’t mentioned in the article.” But the author used ‘President of the USA.”

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.

Logical arguments often but not always use ‘if’ or ‘therefore’. Also, note we are dealing with antiquity.

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".

As to the words used ‘in beginning’, ‘the’ is a fill word used by the interpreter. If the beginning is not prior to time itself, then what is it?

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.

Have you bothered to read John 1:3

“All things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that was made.”

Now following your logic Jn should have started with vs 3 then continued with vs 1&2

All things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that was made. In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Note John identifies the Logos alone with God in the beginning, vs 1, then is emphatic vs2, then mentions creation in vs 3.

Jn 1:3 Were made (ἐγένετο, ghin·om·ahee) aorist {snapshot view does not indicate time because before there was no time}. Literally, came into being, or became. Expressing the passage from nothingness into being.

 

[Stephen]

The subject in John 1:1 is the “Logos” who is then identified as Jesus. Similar to writing, “First thing I notice is that Biden isn’t mentioned in the article.” But the author used ‘President of the USA.”

If the challenge is use only the article to support your position, then that would indeed be similar to the terms of your challenge.

Logical arguments often but not always use ‘if’ or ‘therefore’. Also, note we are dealing with antiquity.

Imaging words like "if" into John 1:1 to support your position is not using John 1:1 to interpret John 1:1.

As to the words used ‘in beginning’, ‘the’ is a fill word used by the interpreter. If the beginning is not prior to time itself, then what is it?

If it doesn't explicitly say which beginning is in view in John 1:1, then claiming that a specific beginning is in view isn't only using John 1:1 to support your position as per the terms of your challenge.

Have you bothered to read John 1:3

“All things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that was made.”

If you are using John 1:3 to interpret John 1:1, then you aren't using "only John 1:1" to support your position as per the terms of your challenge.

Now following your logic Jn should have started with vs 3 then continued with vs 1&2.

All things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that was made. In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

This appears to be you making stuff up.

Note John identifies the Logos alone with God in the beginning, vs 1, then is emphatic vs2, then mentions creation in vs 3.

Jn 1:3 Were made (ἐγένετο, ghin·om·ahee) aorist {snapshot view does not indicate time because before there was no time}. Literally, came into being, or became. Expressing the passage from nothingness into being.

Just in case you have forgotten what your challenge was, it is in the title: "Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1" and not "interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3.

 

[101G]

Suggest you read the OP again. The four renderings of ‘first’ are referring to verses. Also ‘second’ is not found in the OP. The above is nonsense.

thanks for the reply, but I beg to differ, John 1:1c confirm that the FIRST God is "also" the second, me, I prefer the term LAST God. meaning that it is the SAME "one" God who is first and Last.

so your assumption is incorrect.

Since you brought up the Shema let’s address the Shema but first, let’s address Elohym which we find in Deuteronomy 6:4

Elohym: There are several ways to make a word plural in Hebrew. One way is to add hiym to the ending. Note Abram = father of people, changed to Abahym = father of peoples. Cherub one angel, cherubim many angels. “Elowahh” translates to God 52 times and its plural form “elohiym” is used 2347 times referring to YHWH God. In Genesis 1:1-26 we read that God was in the beginning and that He created this, He created that, and that He called them good. In all 26 verses, God translates from elohiym. In vs. 26 God said, “Let us make…” The Triune Council created man. When God said “Let us make…”, “us” could not have been any others, such as angels, for all others were created by God and only God creates. In Genesis, the Triune Council is in the beginning, and in John “Logos” is alongside God. [Plurality]

• SHEMA
  • Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God [Elohim], the Lord is one [Ehad]!”
    • This is part of the Shema, which was recited by the Jews twice a day, one in the morning and once in the evening. This confession of monotheism does not preclude the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. God is in plural form “Elohim” and implies the Trinity and “one” “ehad” implies unity.
      • “Ehad” means a united one; Adam and Eve were one “ehad” flesh. Our church is one “ehad” church.
      • If Moses wanted to state that God is a singular God he would have used “yahid” which means singular one as in one chair, or one table.
      • The Jews of the Old Testament were reciting their creed which spoke volumes of the Trinity.
        • [Plurality and unity of one]

thanks for bringing up Deuteronomy 6:4, because that\s where your problem is at, one or H259 אֶחָד 'echad do not mean nor implies unity, THAT'S THE BIG LIE OF THE DEVIL. listen to the definition, according to Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

you and many others have chosen the wrong definition ... #1 as your unity in a trinity, well ERROR, Definition #2 is the correct rending of the Godhead as ONE GOD, who is LORD, in ORDINAL NUMBER designation, and Not in Cardinal Number designation as a unity of two or more. that's your MISTAKE. God is a plurality in Ordinal Numbers designation, and NOT in Cardinal Number designation as in quantity. see your mistake now, God is a plurality in "TIME", "PLACE", RANK", and "ORDER", which are Ordinal designations as in "FIRST" and "LAST", Father and Son, Beginning and End, Root and Offspring, or as in Hebrew the Aleph and the Tav. all are Ordinal designation, and not a unity.

understand, the mistake was in choosing definition #1, to fit a trinity of unity, when in fact you chose DEATH. Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
we suggest you reconsider your choice of Definition, and learn the difference between Ordinal Numbers, and Cardinal Numbers.

By citing Isa 44:6 you shot yourself in the foot. Remember Hebrew trumps English. So how would you reconcile Deut. 32:39 where God states there is no other God, and Isa 44:6 where God identifies Himself ‘The King of Israel’ and someone else ‘The Lord of Host’ as YWHW?

TWO IDENTIFIED AS YHWH = SAME VERSE

• Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, : I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}
  • In the original “Lord” is translated from YHWH therefore this verse reads. “Thus says YHWH the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, YHWH, Lord of host, I am the First and I am the Last, Besides Me the is no God.
  • Hebrew read right to left; here left to right for simplicity.
    • כֹּֽה ־אָמַ֨ר יְהוָ֧ה מֶֽלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְגֹאֲלֹ֖ו גָּאַל יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת אֲנִ֤י רִאשׁוֹן֙ וַאֲנִ֣י אַחֲר֔וֹן וּמִבַּלְעָדַ֖י אֵ֥ין אֱלֹהִֽים׃
    • This כֹּֽה saysאָמַ֨ר Yahweh יְהוָ֧ה the King מֶֽלֶךְIsrael יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל and וְגֹאֲלֹ֖ו Redeemer גָּאַל Yahweh יְהוָ֣ה Lord of host, צְבָא֑וֹת I am אֲנִ֤י the First אַחֲר֔וֹן…
      • Two individuals identified as God by the name ‘YHWH”.
      • God is plurality and singularity

Another ERROR on YOUR part, the LORD is the Lord the same one person only Diversifed in Flesh as REDEEMER, you missed what Isaiah 44:6 stated, listen and Learn,
Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
so we ask Towerwatchman who is the LORD's REDEEMER in SALVATION? answer, his OWN "ARM", God himself. scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

now, go and look up who is his OWN arm..... NOT TWO individuals, but the same ONE PERSON, "DIVERSIFIED" in Flesh as the Ordinal First, and the Ordinal Last, and that will reprove your ERROR.

now since you don't understand the complete Hebrew, so lets get educated. Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

do you think that this is TWO separate individuals? the "LORD", all caps, and the "Lord". if you do then you have a big suprise coming, listen, it's the SAME person, only in Ordinal designation. and here's why, Psalms 110:5 "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath."

the term "Lord" here is the Hebrew, H136 אֲדֹנָי 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') n-m.
1. (meaning) Lord (used as a proper name of God only).
2. (person) Adonai, The Lord God of Israel (which is actually “Yahweh God of Israel” - see Exodus 5:1 and 120 other occurrences).
[am emphatic form of H113]
KJV: (my) Lord.
Root(s): H113
Compare: H3068, H1167, H1168

did you see definition #2. THANK you, for the Word in John 1:1 is the Lord Jesus who is the SAME ONE GOD as Stated in John 1:1c. so within the verse itself at Jphn 1:1 it confirm that God is a plurality in Ordinal designation as First/Father, and Last/Son.

so as we said, God is a plurality of "ONE PERSON", in Ordinal designation, so you're reproved on YHWH, as the ONE God in John 1:1.

PICJAG, 101G.

PS we suggest you re-read this post for proper digestion, and edification.

 

[CrowCross]

I believe Jesus has always been God.

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 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

Thank you for that reply. It is one of the best descriptions of the Trinity I've read in a long time.

 

[Towerwatchman]

If the challenge is use only the article to support your position, then that would indeed be similar to the terms of your challenge.

The fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion. Just because you identify both as challenges does not equate to them being the same. Bad logic.

Imaging words like "if" into John 1:1 to support your position is not using John 1:1 to interpret John 1:1.

A rather childish reply. Again, Logical arguments often but not always use ‘if’ or ‘therefore’. Also, note we are dealing with antiquity.

If it doesn't explicitly say which beginning is in view in John 1:1, then claiming that a specific beginning is in view isn't only using John 1:1 to support your position as per the terms of your challenge.

Setting the bar too high. If it does not state specifically which beginning, [as if there is more than one,= note the definition of the word], how do you know I am wrong? You can’t prove me wrong. What a smart person would do is post evidence from Scripture that proves my statement wrong.

But let’s visit this.

From Civic.

[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

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.] [Civic]

John 1:3“All things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that was made.” Were made (ἐγένετο, ghin·om·ahee) aorist {snapshot view does not indicate time because before there was no time}. Literally, came into being, or became. Expressing the passage from nothingness into being.

Note John identifies the Logos alone with God in the beginning, vs 1, then is emphatic vs2,[repeating himself to drive the point home] then mentions creation in vs 3.

If you are using John 1:3 to interpret John 1:1, then you aren't using "only John 1:1" to support your position as per the terms of your challenge.

Wow, above you criticize what a logical argument is and here prove you have no clue as to what one is.

Let’s recap.

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”.

The conclusion ‘God’ or ‘a god’ is what has to be proven from premises 1,2 or both. Not what the beginning is. Similar to arguing in what position the Logos and God were ‘pros’, facing, side by side, etc.

This appears to be you making stuff up.
Just in case you have forgotten what your challenge was, it is in the title: "Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1" and not "interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3.

How would you like me to answer your question? Note, you are off-topic.

Your post: 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.

Note, both Civic and I, by using John 1:1 proved that the beginning in John 1:1 was before the temporal and the physical. Now, use the same standard you demand and prove it is another beginning. Sitting on the fence and waving your hand is poor scholarship.

 

[Stephen]

The fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion. Just because you identify both as challenges does not equate to them being the same. Bad logic.

Of course it is a good analogy if the challenge is alike in meaningful ways. For example:

• If you can't arrive at your conclusions using only the news article, then you haven't met the challenge.
• If you can't arrive at your conclusions using "only John 1:1", then you haven't met the challenge.

As such, you haven't met your own challenge.

A rather childish reply. Again, Logical arguments often but not always use ‘if’ or ‘therefore’. Also, note we are dealing with antiquity.

Something being in antiquity does not give carte blanche to assume words like "if" and "therefore" into the text. Especially when the author uses these words elsewhere in the same text multiple dozens of times. However, if you believe your fantasies carry the same weight as scripture, then I'm sure nobody will be able to argue you out of your fantasies.

Setting the bar too high. If it does not state specifically which beginning, [as if there is more than one,= note the definition of the word], how do you know I am wrong? You can’t prove me wrong. What a smart person would do is post evidence from Scripture that proves my statement wrong.

The challenge is to "interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1" with the specific request to "support [your] position by using John 1:1 only". You set the bar.

But let’s visit this.

I visited it. Civic is interpreting John 1:1 by John 1:3 in a thread with the challenge to "interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1"

Wow, above you criticize what a logical argument is and here prove you have no clue as to what one is.

Let’s recap.

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”.

The conclusion ‘God’ or ‘a god’ is what has to be proven from premises 1,2 or both. Not what the beginning is. Similar to arguing in what position the Logos and God were ‘pros’, facing, side by side, etc.

There are no reputable scholars that claim John 1:1 is a logical argument.

How would you like me to answer your question? Note, you are off-topic.

Your post: 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.

There was no question in the statements you are addressing. Questions are identified through the use of a "?" and none were present. You have simply fantasized that one was asked.

Note, both Civic and I, by using John 1:1 proved that the beginning in John 1:1 was before the temporal and the physical. Now, use the same standard you demand and prove it is another beginning. Sitting on the fence and waving your hand is poor scholarship.

Neither Civic nor yourself "proved" (cough, cough) that per your standard of "John 1:1 only".


I'll bow out now, as even you think the bar of "support [your] position by using John 1:1 only" is "too high", which was my purpose of entering the discussion.

 

[Towerwatchman]

thanks for the reply, but I beg to differ, John 1:1c confirm that the FIRST God is "also" the second, me, I prefer the term LAST God. meaning that it is the SAME "one" God who is first and Last.

so your assumption is incorrect.

Really? You wrote [or as the OP said, First and Second. which second states LAST, for there is none after the second, hence the Last.]

So again, suggest you read the OP again. The four renderings of ‘first’ are referring to verses. Also ‘second’ is not found in the OP. The above is nonsense.

thanks for bringing up Deuteronomy 6:4, because that\s where your problem is at, one or H259 אֶחָד 'echad do not mean nor implies unity, THAT'S THE BIG LIE OF THE DEVIL. listen to the definition, according to Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew TestamentsH259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.

Your own definition of ‘United one”

one, i.e., that which is united as one in contrast to separate parts (Ge 2:24; Dt 6:4) [Dictionary of Biblical Languages]

But let's continue.

2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

you and many others have chosen the wrong definition ... #1 as your unity in a trinity, well ERROR, Definition #2 is the correct rending of the Godhead as ONE GOD, who is LORD, in ORDINAL NUMBER designation, and Not in Cardinal Number designation as a unity of two or more. that's your MISTAKE. God is a plurality in Ordinal Numbers designation, and NOT in Cardinal Number designation as in quantity. see your mistake now, God is a plurality in "TIME", "PLACE", RANK", and "ORDER", which are Ordinal designations as in "FIRST" and "LAST", Father and Son, Beginning and End, Root and Offspring, or as in Hebrew the Aleph and the Tav. all are Ordinal designation, and not a unity.

understand, the mistake was in choosing definition #1, to fit a trinity of unity, when in fact you chose DEATH. Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
we suggest you reconsider your choice of Definition, and learn the difference between Ordinal Numbers, and Cardinal Numbers.

Highly contrived nonsense. Notice you posted zero scripture as support, and the only scripture you posted was for persuasion.

Shema Deut 6:4, “Hear, O Israel … the Lord is one,” the verse concentrates on the fact that there is one God and that Israel owes its exclusive loyalty to Him, not ordinal or cardinal designation. Let’s stick to the immediate context.

you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Deut 5:9.

How about the verse after the Shema.

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. (Deut 6:5)

BTW when ordinal or cardinal designation is used the text is modified to indicate so.

Cardinal [And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.] Gen 2:21

Ordinal[The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.] Gen 2:11

Another ERROR on YOUR part, the LORD is the Lord the same one person only Diversifed in Flesh as REDEEMER, you missed what Isaiah 44:6 stated, listen and Learn,
Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
so we ask Towerwatchman who is the LORD's REDEEMER in SALVATION? answer, his OWN "ARM", God himself. scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

now, go and look up who is his OWN arm..... NOT TWO individuals, but the same ONE PERSON, "DIVERSIFIED" in Flesh as the Ordinal First, and the Ordinal Last, and that will reprove your ERROR.

Again highly contrived. Let’s read it again. In the original language ‘Hebrew’ “Lord” is translated from YHWH therefore this verse reads. “Thus says YHWH the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, YHWH, Lord of Host, I am the First and I am the Last, Besides Me the is no God.

• This כֹּֽה saysאָמַ֨ר Yahweh יְהוָ֧ה the King מֶֽלֶךְIsrael יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל and וְגֹאֲלֹ֖ו Redeemer גָּאַל Yahweh יְהוָ֣ה Lord of host, צְבָא֑וֹת I am אֲנִ֤י the First אַחֲר֔וֹן…
• We have one individual who identifies Himself as YHWH King of Israel, identifying another individual as YHWH Lord of Host. Using the possessive determiner “His” YHWH King of Israel makes Himself distinct from YHWH Lord of Host.

Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

Read the verse carefully. It states “therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me;” Brought salvation on to me.

Your god seems to have a psychological problem, first, he identifies his arm as YHWH Lord of Host and then brings salvation unto himself. Or scripture is correct and you failed to do your homework.

now since you don't understand the complete Hebrew, so lets get educated. Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

do you think that this is TWO separate individuals? the "LORD", all caps, and the "Lord". if you do then you have a big suprise coming, listen, it's the SAME person, only in Ordinal designation. and here's why, Psalms 110:5 "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath."

the term "Lord" here is the Hebrew, H136 אֲדֹנָי 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') n-m.
1. (meaning) Lord (used as a proper name of God only).
2. (person) Adonai, The Lord God of Israel (which is actually “Yahweh God of Israel” - see Exodus 5:1 and 120 other occurrences).
[am emphatic form of H113]
KJV: (my) Lord.
Root(s): H113
Compare: H3068, H1167, H1168

Wow, you are presenting ‘Lord” translating from English to Hebrew. That is useless. What matters is what ‘Lord” translates from. [HEBREW] In Isa 44:6 “Lord” translates from “YHWH”. Again what X translates from not to.

• This כֹּֽה saysאָמַ֨ר Yahweh יְהוָ֧ה the King מֶֽלֶךְIsrael יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל and וְגֹאֲלֹ֖ו Redeemer גָּאַל Yahweh יְהוָ֣ה Lord of host, צְבָא֑וֹת I am אֲנִ֤י the First אַחֲר֔וֹן…

did you see definition #2. THANK you, for the Word in John 1:1 is the Lord Jesus who is the SAME ONE GOD as Stated in John 1:1c. so within the verse itself at Jphn 1:1 it confirm that God is a plurality in Ordinal designation as First/Father, and Last/Son.

so as we said, God is a plurality of "ONE PERSON", in Ordinal designation, so you're reproved on YHWH, as the ONE God in John 1:1.

PICJAG, 101G.

PS we suggest you re-read this post for proper digestion, and edification.

Unsupported personal opinions and personal opinions are not universal truths. You are entitled to your opinions but not your facts.
God Bless
TWM

 

[TheLayman]

Whoever these people are they possess a wrong understanding of the Trinity.

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.

Hello TW:

First let me say I really like the way you presented your OP, basically as the beginning of a thesis that you were trying to get other eyes on to find any weaknesses you may have missed. Full disclosure, I am an orthodox Trinitarian. So a few things:

You said, "'Person' refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will, and desire."

So I would first say that it is great that you are offering definitions for you terms but I would also say you need to offer the source for you definitions. Is this merely a definition you have made up for the term? Is it the the theological definition? And if so where did you find it? You get the idea. I say this because the definition you have offered is that which is offered by a recent heresy that infects the Evangelical church from seminary to pulpit called Functional Kenotic Christology and it is incompatible with the historic doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. "Mind, will, and desire" are all attributes of "substance/essence/nature," not the person.

When it comes to the Trinity most people believe there are three nouns, when in fact there are four. The three centers of consciousness Father, Son, and HS plus the being God. As this applies to John 1:1 both renderings of God are referring to the same being, who within exist the three centers of consciousness. Allow me to rewrite. In the beginning, was the [center of consciousness} and the [center of consciousness} was with [the being] and the [center of consciousness} was [the being].

Within our plane of existence one center of consciousness = one being, on the Divine plane three centers of consciousness exist in one Being.

See, it would help me to know where you came by your definitions and why you believe those are the definitions John was using and wished to communicate (which of course means you must go outside John 1:1, but I'm okay with that).

That said, you have proffered a contradiction as a thing cannot be distinct from itself and yet you have proffered that A was with B (numerically distinct) and that A was B (numerically identical). Further, the grammar of the passage indicates that this cannot be as "God" is the object of a preposition in 1.1b and therefore cannot be the subject which is "The Word" of that phrase, and yet this is what you argument asserts. So I say your argument is flawed logically and grammatically.

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.

And this is where I think the problem with your argument originated. An anarthrous noun can be definite, indefinite, or qualitative. You have made God definite in both 1.1b and 1.1c resulting in the the contradictions and grammatical problems I noted above (yes, I say God in 1.1c is qualitative as do most Trinitarian scholars, and the reason I don't say all is there is no way I could have consulted all of them).

So to sum up, I would say the root problems I see stem from your definitions of your terms (but it is great that you provided them) and the fact that for some reason you wish to make "God" definite in both 1.1b and 1.1c. Just a quick critique TW.

TheLayman

 

[101G]

Your own definition of ‘United one”

one, i.e., that which is united as one in contrast to separate parts (Ge 2:24; Dt 6:4) [Dictionary of Biblical Languages]

first thanks for the reply, second, ERROR on your part, did you not hear what you said? "Really? You wrote [or as the OP said, First and Second. which second states LAST, for there is none after the second, hence the Last.]"
First and Last confirm ORDINAL DESIGNATIONS, so you're reproved.

Highly contrived nonsense. Notice you posted zero scripture as support, and the only scripture you posted was for persuasion.

Shema Deut 6:4, “Hear, O Israel … the Lord is one,” the verse concentrates on the fact that there is one God and that Israel owes its exclusive loyalty to Him, not ordinal or cardinal designation. Let’s stick to the immediate context.

you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Deut 5:9.

How about the verse after the Shema.

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. (Deut 6:5)

BTW when ordinal or cardinal designation is used the text is modified to indicate so.

Cardinal [And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.] Gen 2:21

Ordinal[The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.] Gen 2:11

well lets see if what you assess is true or not. listen and LEARN, First and Last Ordinal of the Shema, scripture,
Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."
now Towerwatchman, do not the Shema say the "LORD", all caps as here in Isaiah 41:4 say is the ONE GOD? lets see, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

so the LORD, all caps is the "FIRST"... hello..... and Isaiah 41:4 said that the LORD, the First is with the LAST, correct..... he said "I am he", now this,
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." . case closed, the First is "ALSO" the Last, and this is the ORDINAL DESIGNATION we been speaking of.

look that misguide statement, "Ordinal[The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.] Gen 2:11", the first there is CARDINAL in designation, how do we know? because, Genesis 2:13 "And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia." Genesis 2:14 "And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

BINGO, you're reproved again, because the three rivers shows a quantity, which is not in ORDINAL, but Cardinal in designation. see how the devil used you in that deception. remember Cardinal numbers tell 'how many' of something, they show quantity. Ordinal numbers tell the order of how things are set, they show the position or the rank of something. ... We use cardinal numbers for counting (think cardinal = counting). Ordinal numbers all use a suffix. .... as in FIRST and LAST, or 1st, & 2nd .......... (smile)... YIKES!.

NOW, this information should answer the rest of your ILL fated questions.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[101G]

addressing the OP again, understand the ontology of God is expressed in John 1:1 clearly. as with Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

WITH as in John 1:1 is the same one Person, because John 1:1c clearly states this, just as Isaiah 48:12 do, "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

so for all those out there who might have an ontological misunderstanding of the Lord Jesus as GOD, welll not any more.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[jamesh]

Hello TW:

First let me say I really like the way you presented your OP, basically as the beginning of a thesis that you were trying to get other eyes on to find any weaknesses you may have missed. Full disclosure, I am an orthodox Trinitarian. So a few things:

You said, "'Person' refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will, and desire."

So I would first say that it is great that you are offering definitions for you terms but I would also say you need to offer the source for you definitions. Is this merely a definition you have made up for the term? Is it the the theological definition? And if so where did you find it? You get the idea. I say this because the definition you have offered is that which is offered by a recent heresy that infects the Evangelical church from seminary to pulpit called Functional Kenotic Christology and it is incompatible with the historic doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. "Mind, will, and desire" are all attributes of "substance/essence/nature," not the person.


See, it would help me to know where you came by your definitions and why you believe those are the definitions John was using and wished to communicate (which of course means you must go outside John 1:1, but I'm okay with that).

That said, you have proffered a contradiction as a thing cannot be distinct from itself and yet you have proffered that A was with B (numerically distinct) and that A was B (numerically identical). Further, the grammar of the passage indicates that this cannot be as "God" is the object of a preposition in 1.1b and therefore cannot be the subject which is "The Word" of that phrase, and yet this is what you argument asserts. So I say your argument is flawed logically and grammatically.



And this is where I think the problem with your argument originated. An anarthrous noun can be definite, indefinite, or qualitative. You have made God definite in both 1.1b and 1.1c resulting in the the contradictions and grammatical problems I noted above (yes, I say God in 1.1c is qualitative as do most Trinitarian scholars, and the reason I don't say all is there is no way I could have consulted all of them).

So to sum up, I would say the root problems I see stem from your definitions of your terms (but it is great that you provided them) and the fact that for some reason you wish to make "God" definite in both 1.1b and 1.1c. Just a quick critique TW.

TheLayman

Hey Mark, it's really good to see you post because I am able to learn from them. I still continue to pray for your health and I hope you are progressing in that area. And as usual, keep up the good work. Everything is fine with me except for having bad knees, arthritis. God bless you and yours.

IN GOD THE SON,
james

 

[Towerwatchman]

Of course it is a good analogy if the challenge is alike in meaningful ways. For example:

• If you can't arrive at your conclusions using only the news article, then you haven't met the challenge.
• If you can't arrive at your conclusions using "only John 1:1", then you haven't met the challenge.

As such, you haven't met your own challenge.

It’s a false analogy. You identify both as challenges but they are different. Read the OP, I met my challenge. Your challenge is irrelevant.

Something being in antiquity does not give carte blanche to assume words like "if" and "therefore" into the text. Especially when the author uses these words elsewhere in the same text multiple dozens of times. However, if you believe your fantasies carry the same weight as scripture, then I'm sure nobody will be able to argue you out of your fantasies.

In the real world, people do not always communicate using 'if' or 'therefore' when presenting a logical argument. Your binary approach to this topic produces a narrow-minded view. “Either the author uses if or therefore otherwise it is not a logical argument”, is poor scholarship. What makes John 1:1 a logical argument = the conclusion “and the Logos was God” is derived from the general claims 1, In the beginning, was the Logos, 2 and the Logos was with God.

There are no reputable scholars that claim John 1:1 is a logical argument.

The fallacy of Anonymous Authority.

“When unspecified sources are used as evidence for the claim. This is commonly indicated by phrases such as “they said, that it has been said, I heard that studies show’ or generalize groups such as ‘scientists say. When we fail to specify a source of the authority we cannot verify the source, thus the credibility of the argument. Appeals to anonymous sources are more often than not either a way to fabricate, exaggerate, or misrepresent facts in order to deceive others into accepting a claim.” [Logically Fallacious}

Neither Civic nor yourself "proved" (cough, cough) that per your standard of "John 1:1 only".

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. [Civic]

Let’s try this again.

John 1:1 nv = verb, imperfect, active, indicative, third person, singular.

verb — A word that describes an action, state of being, or the production of a result.

imperfect — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being that is occurring in the past with no assessment of the action’s completion.

active — The grammatical voice that signifies that the subject is performing the verbal action or is in the state described by the verb.

indicative — The mood in which the action of the verb or the state of being it describes is presented by the writer as real.

third person — In grammar, “person” refers to the feature of verbs or pronouns that helps us distinguish

singular — Refers to one person or thing

Seems the author is conveying absolute existence.

Let’s take this logic and apply it to John 1:1. I am standing at the railroad crossing, ‘the beginning.’ The track runs north to south. North of the railroad crossing is the physical and temporal, south of the railroad crossing is the eternal and the spiritual. I am looking south as the train is passing, ‘eimi ho logos’. Using the imperfect where is the train in relation to the railroad crossing [the beginning]? Both sides, before and after the railroad crossing [the beginning]. It is not the imperfect that conveys the idea of an eternal train but its relation to the railroad crossing [the beginning].

 

[Towerwatchman]

Hello TW:

First let me say I really like the way you presented your OP, basically as the beginning of a thesis that you were trying to get other eyes on to find any weaknesses you may have missed. Full disclosure, I am an orthodox Trinitarian. So a few things:

You said, "'Person' refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will, and desire."

So I would first say that it is great that you are offering definitions for you terms but I would also say you need to offer the source for you definitions. Is this merely a definition you have made up for the term? Is it the the theological definition? And if so where did you find it? You get the idea. I say this because the definition you have offered is that which is offered by a recent heresy that infects the Evangelical church from seminary to pulpit called Functional Kenotic Christology and it is incompatible with the historic doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. "Mind, will, and desire" are all attributes of "substance/essence/nature," not the person.

The definitions were refined over time. The sources for my definition are found throughout scripture. Over and over we find multiple examples of the Father’s, Son’s or HS’s will and desire. One has to have a center of consciousness to have a mind, will, and desire.
Mind, will, and desire does not originate from substance, essence, or nature.

That said, you have proffered a contradiction as a thing cannot be distinct from itself and yet you have proffered that A was with B (numerically distinct) and that A was B (numerically identical). Further, the grammar of the passage indicates that this cannot be as "God" is the object of a preposition in 1.1b and therefore cannot be the subject which is "The Word" of that phrase, and yet this is what you argument asserts. So I say your argument is flawed logically and grammatically.

First, let's define the terms.
What is A = center of consciousness.
What is B = the being in which said center of consciousness exists.
Unlike us who are one center of consciousness per being, God is three centers of consciousness in one being. I conclude that on the Divine plane, where there is no physical, there exist three centers of consciousness, who individually are with God, [A was with B] and since they belong to the same being, ‘God’ they can also be God at the same time. [A is B].

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 HS is God, but not the Father or the Son.

The Holy Spirit is God but not the Father or Son.And this is where I think the problem with your argument originated. An anarthrous noun can be definite, indefinite, or qualitative. You have made God definite in both 1.1b and 1.1c resulting in the the contradictions and grammatical problems I noted above (yes, I say God in 1.1c is qualitative as do most Trinitarian scholars, and the reason I don't say all is there is no way I could have consulted all of them).

The foundation for this argument has been addressed above. Let's continue. I have read some authors who believe that 1c is qualitative and 1a presents the deity of Jesus. I found their reasoning highly contrived, and not supported by the Gospel of John or the immediate text. Since John is explicit that Jesus is God, Jn 20:28, and 1a, I conclude that definite is the logical translation in 1c. But we do have a pattern of John's writing lacking the definite article in which he intended the noun to be definite. John 1:6,12,13,18, 3:2,21, 9:33.

God Bless
TWM

 

[Towerwatchman]

first thanks for the reply, second, ERROR on your part, did you not hear what you said? "Really? You wrote [or as the OP said, First and Second. which second states LAST, for there is none after the second, hence the Last.]"
First and Last confirm ORDINAL DESIGNATIONS, so you're reproved.

well lets see if what you assess is true or not. listen and LEARN, First and Last Ordinal of the Shema, scripture,
Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."
now Towerwatchman, do not the Shema say the "LORD", all caps as here in Isaiah 41:4 say is the ONE GOD? lets see, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

so the LORD, all caps is the "FIRST"... hello..... and Isaiah 41:4 said that the LORD, the First is with the LAST, correct..... he said "I am he", now this,
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." . case closed, the First is "ALSO" the Last, and this is the ORDINAL DESIGNATION we been speaking of.

look that misguide statement, "Ordinal[The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.] Gen 2:11", the first there is CARDINAL in designation, how do we know? because, Genesis 2:13 "And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia." Genesis 2:14 "And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

BINGO, you're reproved again, because the three rivers shows a quantity, which is not in ORDINAL, but Cardinal in designation. see how the devil used you in that deception. remember Cardinal numbers tell 'how many' of something, they show quantity. Ordinal numbers tell the order of how things are set, they show the position or the rank of something. ... We use cardinal numbers for counting (think cardinal = counting). Ordinal numbers all use a suffix. .... as in FIRST and LAST, or 1st, & 2nd .......... (smile)... YIKES!.

NOW, this information should answer the rest of your ILL fated questions.

PICJAG, 101G.

Suggest you present your arguments in a logical format. The above is pure opinionated nonsense.

 

[101G]

Suggest you present your arguments in a logical format. The above is pure opinionated nonsense.

GINOLJC, to all,
First thanks for the reply, second, so we can take this as you are Ignorant of the word of God? thought so. .... YIKES!

opinionated? according to YOU... lol, so either you cannot follow scripture which is logical themselves, or you're ignorant of GOD'S Holy Word? which one?. lets see,

now, if it's because we exposed your illogical thinking statement about the three rivers as not being cardinal numbers designations, then do as my Motto ststes, "when there is Knowledge, stay not ignorant" .... so go and LOOK UP, and know the difference between Cardinal Numbers, and Ordinal numbers, and how they are used.

and if you're trying to Understand saiah 41:4 and Isaiah 48:12, instead of complaining, just ask questions.... YEA!

the only thing you replied to, was your opinionated excuses. stick with scripture, and not focus on the person. only on TRUTH, and definitly not your personal image... (smile), lol, lol, lol.

now in closing, if you cannot follow scripture, and do not understand 101G speech, we suggest you go to the Holy Spirit and ask him to give you wisdom... ok, so quit all the escuses of someone's else opinionated nonsense, and get the Holy Spirit and get some common sense.

Good day,

PICJAG.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Hello TW:


That said, you have proffered a contradiction as a thing cannot be distinct from itself and yet you have proffered that A was with B (numerically distinct) and that A was B (numerically identical). Further, the grammar of the passage indicates that this cannot be as "God" is the object of a preposition in 1.1b and therefore cannot be the subject which is "The Word" of that phrase, and yet this is what you argument asserts. So I say your argument is flawed logically and grammatically.
You have made God definite in both 1.1b and 1.1c resulting in the the contradictions and grammatical problems I noted above (yes, I say God in 1.1c is qualitative as do most Trinitarian scholars, and the reason I don't say all is there is no way I could have consulted all of them).

Out of all the questions posed, I would say this is the best one. As we pull the parameters back and allow other authors to be included in the question, your conclusion creates a contradiction. Just as your question and conclusion can be posed within the parameters of Jn 1:1 it can also be presented within the parameters of the NT. Note.
looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, [Ti 2:13]
Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: [2 Pe 1:1]
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” [Jn 20:28]
But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
[Hebrews 1:8-9.

"That said, you have proffered a contradiction as a thing cannot be distinct from itself and yet you have proffered that A was with B (numerically distinct John = 1:1b} and that A was B (numerically identical = Titus 2:13, 2Pe 1:1, Jn 20:28, Heb 1:8-9].

God Bless
TWM