John 1:1

[dyanaprajna2011]

In the Bible's Gospel of John, it opens thus:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."

I would like Christians to give me their views regarding this verse, and why they believe what they believe about it. I will give you my thoughts on it.

There's a few problems here in the Greek. The first is on the word "word". The Greek word is "logos", which actually has various shades of meaning, but in pre-NT times, it meant reason, or something similar. Christians say that Jesus is the word, the logos, but do they really understand what that means? If we take the word logos to mean it's common meaning of reason, then how can an abstract idea like reason be in human form? Now, logos can mean word, or more generally, language. The Greek word lexis also means word, and they both come from the same root. But, lexis is generally the word used to denote a word itself, while logos is used to denote the reason, or idea, behind the word. My question is this: with this definition of logos, how can Christians logically equate it with living person? How does this make any sense, or how can this be reconciled philosophically?

Another problem is with the phrase, "and the logos was God". While it's ambiguous, the general syntax of the Greek suggests that the logos wasn't God, but "a god", or "divine".

To me, it seems like a better interpretation of this verse would be to assume that the "logos" was not Jesus, but the divine will or reason of God. Any thoughts?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Bumping it up.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I dunno. If you can read Greek, there aren't any problems in the Greek. I mean, there are many disputable passages where grammar / syntax / and any number of things can throw interpretation every which way.

John 1:1 simply isn't one of those verses. There are no grammar, syntax, textual or even basic definition issues. The issue is theology, not Greek, and there is a HUGE difference between the two.

What was John's theology? I don't know exactly, but it's not our theology.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

John always seemed more mystical to me. He was concerned with the inner state of man, spirituality, unity with God, and it's primarily from his gospel where Catholics and Orthodox get their teaching of the real presence of Jesus in communion.

 

[waitasec]

The issue is theology, not Greek, and there is a HUGE difference between the two.

What was John's theology? I don't know exactly, but it's not our theology.

but if the logos was god...

are we talking about a specific language?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The Stoics taught that the 'logos' was the divine generating and animating principle of the universe. Taken with the definition of those such as Aristotle and Heraclitus, we can see that the Greek philosophers understood 'logos' to be the rational divine animating principle of the universe. I'm wondering how Christians can reconcile this with their understanding that Jesus is the logos. angellous makes a point, it's not about the Greek, it's about the theology. But Christian theology should be based on Greek, and it seems to me that Christian scholars today have a very poor understanding, if one at all, of ancient Greek.

 

[waitasec]

John always seemed more mystical to me. He was concerned with the inner state of man, spirituality, unity with God, and it's primarily from his gospel where Catholics and Orthodox get their teaching of the real presence of Jesus in communion.

i agree with this....
and why the gospel of john isn't a part of the synoptic gospels.

john's gospel was written in end of the 1st century. all who claimed to have known jesus died. so passages that are like mark 13:30 "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
in regards to a generation that will witness this:
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down..... 24 “But in those days, following that distress,

“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]

26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”

as far as john was concerned...the temple was destroyed and the revolt didn't end so well .... yet the sun, the moon and the stars remain and the son of man absent. therefore what jesus was talking about had to have been understood mystically.

 

[waitasec]

The Stoics taught that the 'logos' was the divine generating and animating principle of the universe. Taken with the definition of those such as Aristotle and Heraclitus, we can see that the Greek philosophers understood 'logos' to be the rational divine animating principle of the universe. I'm wondering how Christians can reconcile this with their understanding that Jesus is the logos. angellous makes a point, it's not about the Greek, it's about the theology. But Christian theology should be based on Greek, and it seems to me that Christian scholars today have a very poor understanding, if one at all, of ancient Greek.

if we are talking about god...why is the understanding of god subjected to a language that was used for a specific region at a specific time?
the theology of god depends on subjective consequences therefore making it
subjective and can in no way be sufficient to be empirically understood by all.
for example, we know what it means when it rains, or experience an earthquake to starting a family or achieving what one has been striving for...these are things that are understood because we all speak the language of the heart...
the idea of god is not a language understood by all rather it's a dialect or a slang, if you will.

does that make sense?

 

[Sleeppy]

A few lines after John 1:1 it also says that the Word was made flesh. But, I agree that there is an emphasis on the will of God or the reason behind the Word. It was through the will of God that Jesus came in the flesh. He is the will of the Father being done.

 

[Desert Snake]

I dunno. If you can read Greek, there aren't any problems in the Greek. I mean, there are many disputable passages where grammar / syntax / and any number of things can throw interpretation every which way.

John 1:1 simply isn't one of those verses. There are no grammar, syntax, textual or even basic definition issues. The issue is theology, not Greek, and there is a HUGE difference between the two.

What was John's theology? I don't know exactly, but it's not our theology.

So do you have an opinion on the meaning of this? I've also noticed this referenced a few times by Christians on RF.

 

[phatcatholic]

Dyana,

I would like to respond to your original post:

There's a few problems here in the Greek. The first is on the word "word". The Greek word is "logos", which actually has various shades of meaning, but in pre-NT times, it meant reason, or something similar. Christians say that Jesus is the word, the logos, but do they really understand what that means? If we take the word logos to mean it's common meaning of reason, then how can an abstract idea like reason be in human form? Now, logos can mean word, or more generally, language. The Greek word lexis also means word, and they both come from the same root. But, lexis is generally the word used to denote a word itself, while logos is used to denote the reason, or idea, behind the word. My question is this: with this definition of logos, how can Christians logically equate it with living person? How does this make any sense, or how can this be reconciled philosophically?

I say, for the same reason that Jesus can be "light" (Jn 8:12; 9:5) and "life" (Jn 11:25; 14:6) and "truth" (Jn 14:6; 17:17) and other abstract principles. Each of these tells us something different about Jesus, about who He is and what He came to do and to be for us.

Now, the spoken word reveals what it is in the mind of the one who speaks it. By saying that Jesus is the Word, or logos, of God, John is saying that Jesus is the communication or the revelation of the mind of God. Jesus is the preeminent revelation of the mind, and will, and heart, and interior life of God. God spoke of old through the prophets with many words, now, in the fullness of time, He speaks a single word: Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Jesus is the Final Word of the Father. All that God is and wishes to reveal to man is in Christ. This is what we mean when we say that Jesus is "the Word."

Another problem is with the phrase, "and the logos was God". While it's ambiguous, the general syntax of the Greek suggests that the logos wasn't God, but "a god", or "divine".

It is true that the last part of the verse could also be translated as "and the Word was divine." But isn't that exactly what Christians have been saying? Christians only believe in one God, so if Jesus is divine, then that means He possesses the same divine nature as the Father and the Holy Spirit. By saying that "the Word was with God," John is emphasizing the distinction in personality between the Son and the Father. By saying that "the Word was God" or "was divine" John is emphasizing the unity in essence or nature between them. And so, Jn 1:1 becomes a first-defense of the Trinity.

Of course, the Holy Spirit isn't mentioned here, but His divinity is seen elsewhere in John's gospel (for example, in Jn 14:17,23, when all three -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- come to dwell in the man of faith).

I hope that answers all of your questions.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

 

[Green Kepi]

Verse 14 - Jesus became "flesh" and was 'tabernacled' among us. In John 17:5 - tells us that Jesus was there when the earth was created...when was this? Don't know. I believe in the old earth...so this could have been millions & billions of years (but prior to man, there was no time). Time was created for us.

 

[waitasec]

Verse 14 - Jesus became "flesh" and was 'tabernacled' among us. In John 17:5 - tells us that Jesus was there when the earth was created...when was this? Don't know. I believe in the old earth...so this could have been millions & billions of years (but prior to man, there was no time). Time was created for us.

why was time created for us if time had been around for billions of years before?

 

[Green Kepi]

why was time created for us if time had been around for billions of years before?

Not sure I understand your question...prior to man, there was no time. Time only started at Genesis 1:4 & 14, it tells us time started for mankind (so people can plan their activities). Prior to that there was no measurement of time as we know it. When Jesus returns again, time once again stops and we enter what God calls "eternity".

 

[outhouse]

Not sure I understand your question...prior to man, there was no time. Time only started at Genesis 1:4 & 14, it tells us time started for mankind (so people can plan their activities). Prior to that there was no measurement of time as we know it. When Jesus returns again, time once again stops and we enter what God calls "eternity".

How would ancient hebrews that as a culture started forming around 1200 BC KNOW anything about what homo sapiens were doing 200,000 years ago???

Or when the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago??


Im sorry but space time has been around for almost 14 billion years and ancient hebrews knew nothing about this.

 

[Green Kepi]

How would ancient hebrews that as a culture started forming around 1200 BC KNOW anything about what homo sapiens were doing 200,000 years ago???

Or when the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago??


Im sorry but space time has been around for almost 14 billion years and ancient hebrews knew nothing about this.

What? Did I say somewhere that the ancient Hebrews knew something about what happened in that earth prior to this present mankind being created? I am not saying they did. All I tried to say that there was an earth here prior to God's allowing Yeshua to reconstruct what was destroyed before....

 

[outhouse]

mankind being created?

minor issue here

who said mankind was created? isnt that a myth outlawed from public schools?

that there was an earth here prior to God's allowing Yeshua to reconstruct what was destroyed before....

major issue here


WHAT!

what earth prior?

recontruct what?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Not sure I understand your question...prior to man, there was no time. Time only started at Genesis 1:4 & 14, it tells us time started for mankind (so people can plan their activities). Prior to that there was no measurement of time as we know it. When Jesus returns again, time once again stops and we enter what God calls "eternity".

I'm a little confused here. Space and time go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Now, doesn't Genesis 1:2 say "the earth was formless and void...?" If the earth was here in verse 2, then so was time. Regardless of whether creationism is right or not, you cannot have matter without time.

 

[Green Kepi]

I'm a little confused here. Space and time go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Now, doesn't Genesis 1:2 say "the earth was formless and void...?" If the earth was here in verse 2, then so was time. Regardless of whether creationism is right or not, you cannot have matter without time.

Yes..."the earth was formless and void". "Was". The Hebrew word for "was" can be translated "became". In other words, the Hebrew word 'hayah' means the earth was not created without form and void but that it became that way at some point in time after it was created. "Without form" was translated from the Hebrew word "tohuw" that means to lie waste, a desolation. You cannot lie waste or desolate something unless it was once in good condition and then at some time it was destroyed. That's was Genesis 2:28 mentions "fill or replenish".

This shows that the earth already was here - but in a ruined state. 2 Peter 3:5-6...I think...tells me that the universe existed before the creation of the one recreated for mankind ("...the world of that time").

What do you think of this? If you don't think so...please give me your opinion.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In the Bible's Gospel of John, it opens thus:
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."
I would like Christians to give me their views regarding this verse, and why they believe what they believe about it. I will give you my thoughts on it.

When you are 'with' another person are you ever that person?________
Jesus was 'with' his Father before the beginning of the created world.
Jesus was 'with' his Father according to Revelation [3v14] as the beginning of the creation by God.
Even the resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he has a God over him
[Rev 3v12]
Jesus still considers himself as the 'Son' of God according to Rev. 2v18.

So, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
Only God was 'before' the beginning according to Psalm 90v2.

In order for God to send Jesus to earth, Jesus would have had to have had a pre-human heavenly existence. The one speaking at Proverbs [8vs22-31]
is said to be created. Jesus, as the beginning of the creation by God, would show Jesus to be created.

John wrote John.
John wrote that for the record [bare record] that Jesus is the Son of God.
[John 1v34].
John also believes that No man has seen God at any time. -John 1v18
[1st John 4v12] yet, people [man] have seen Jesus.

John wrote Nathanael believed Jesus is the Son at John 1v49
John wrote the disciples believed Jesus is the Holy One of God. John 6v69
John wrote that Jesus believed Jesus is the Son of God at John 10v36
John wrote that Martha believed Jesus is the Son of God at John 11vs24,27
John wrote the Jews say Jesus made himself the Son of God at John 19v7
John wrote the resurrected Jesus called his Father as his God at John 20v17
John wrote that he wrote that we might believe Jesus is the Son at John 20v31

So John [1v1] is saying Jesus is Divine in that Jesus was God's heavenly Son.
Like Lord, God is a title not a personal name.
What is the answer to Proverbs 30v4 B ?_____________