• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

John's Word: Did Jesus create the world?

Did Jesus(aka Word) create the world? (John 1:1-5)

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 43.3%
  • No

    Votes: 21 31.3%
  • No, I do not believe in this verse

    Votes: 6 9.0%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 11 16.4%

  • Total voters
    67

icebuddy

Does the devil lift Jesus up?
1. I would have to amicably disagree. If Christ wanted to impress upon the reader He was only the "ruler" of creation, why didn't He simply utilize the same word He used in Mat 20:25:
" But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers [archon] of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. "​
The Greek term Christ used for ruler is [archon] which can only mean first in rank or power-chief ruler, magistrate, prince, ruler. If Christ's intention was to impress upon the reader He was only the ruler of creation, He utilized the wrong term. Instead He curiously used the term "arche” , which includes the same definition as "archon" but is broader in scope to also mean the very first or original creation.

i would also say that the word "First Created" is not used as well, which would help your cause. What we are basicaly reading is that Jesus is the beginning of creation. So what does that mean? Dont forget that Jesus exactly represents the Fathers very being and that Father is also called the Beginning of Creation, not only that, but the Beginning and End of all things created. So to see Jesus being called the Beginning or the End of all creation would be expected in my opinion.

We need to ask ourselves, How many beginnings are there? 1,2,3... i believe in only one beginning in which the Eternal Word (Jesus)was already there. (Read 1John1:1-5)

2. To my knowledge, the bible nowhere states Christ lived forever in the past. That is a hidden assumption.

1John1:1-5 - The Eternal Word of Life
Col 1:15 - All things created by Jesus
John 1:3 - Not one thing created was created apart from Jesus

3. The Greek word for "firstborn" is "prōtotokos". Strong's tells us it was derived from two words:

"protos" [g4413] which means " foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all)". Interestingly enough, this is where we derive the English word "prototype."
The second term, "tikto", is defined as: to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literal or figurative: - bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail. The term can only mean one thing--first created.

The phrase "the firstborn of" occurs over 30 times in the Bible and in every instance the acceptation is the same-- the firstborn is the very first allotment of the group. The "firstborn of the sheep" is a sheep who was born or existed before all the others (Gen 4:4), the "firstborn of the animals" is an animal born or in essence first created before all the others, etc. (Neh.10:36).

First off Birth or to be born is only an earthly event. No where anywhere do we see birth in the heavens or before the heavens. Jewish People called their heir the Firstborn, that is why we see many Girls being born 1st, not get the title of the Firstborn. We also see this as a title as it can be traded and lost to other siblings. We also read that Jesus became Firsrtborn at his Earthly birth (Luke 2:7)(Hebrews 1:5-6)

After reading Hebrews 1:5-6 you will see that Angels were already present when Jesus became the Firstborn son of God and that by use of the words "Today" indicate the world was already created and days existed. The Bible also agrees with this thinking that Jesus being called the Firstborn is heir to God his Father at Matt 28:18 & Rev 1:5 (Ruler of Earth) Col 1:18 also sums it up

4. Christ can not be 100% exactly like the Father. He said so himself:
Joh 14:28 You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.

1St off Jesus could have said the Angels were greater than him at this point... But thats not my point to be made. I Agree that the Father is Greater by being the Father of Jesus. However, that doesnt mean Jesus cannot be exactly like the Father in every way to us their creation. Just as a man and wife are married and the Husband is in a greater roll, they are equall in being Man...

The Father and Son are unified and equal (Joh 10:30;Php 2:6) in all except power, rank, and age (Joh 14:28). BTW...I'm not a JW.

We agree and disagree on some things here. Not a JW, good to know, but you do believe close to them

Questions:
Not equal in age? I assume you believe Jesus is Created. Other than whats above, do you have any more verses to support this?

Not Equal in Power? Are you saying that NOT all Authority is upon Jesus? Explain if possible

In Love,
tom
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
These seem like JW answers, but my answer (Trinity) would be that the Bible says God Created all things and thats why JW must put a wedge between Jesus and being creator because they dont believe Jesus is God. However, it is the simple belief that the God who create all things in the Old Testament is now revealed to us in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Just as our One Universe is made up of Time, Space, and Matter we believe God creates things in 3's for us to understand. Just as we believe a person is made up of Body, Soul, and Spirit. (1Thes 5:23)

Again, the JW type teaching is that Jesus is not God and must be created. It is the Trinity belief that the bible shows in many places that Jesus is God and uncreated. Even John 1:1-3 says Jesus(word) was already there in the beginning and that nothing was created apart from Jesus(including Jesus himself). John also confirms to us at 1John1:1-5 that the Word (Jesus) is Eternal. Besides no where i have seen says Jesus was created before creation.

My answer is quit simple. Jesus is the Image of God and one cannot create without his Image. (and spirit) I see this as no different than saying, I made breakfast through my hands.

Some people will use this verse to say Jesus isnt God, yet they miss the fact that it also says "One Lord Jesus"... Does that mean the Father is no longer Lord? (or vise versa) Context is showing us that none of these other "so-called" gods matter or exist. To us its one system of belief which includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The NIV translates Rev 3:14 as Jesus being the "Ruler" of the creation of God. Some people will say Jesus is created, but this is dangerous because you are also saying the Word is Not eternal, Jesus didnt "really" create, not worshipped, not prayed(talked) to, and many more they drag our Lord Jesus down just enough to maybe be dangerous to ones Soul. The Greek word for Beginning here is "ARCHE" and the English word most like it is "[FONT=&quot]Architect​
" or in other words, Jesus is the Architect of the creation of God. Jesus is the Firstborn over Gods creation! Firstborn is a Jewish term meaning Heirship.

Not to overlook the Father being called the "Beginning and End" of all Creation, yet that doesnt mean he has a beginning nor an End. So it is no wonder why we see Jesus also being called the Beginning of Creation as he is exactly like the Father expressing him 100%. (Heb 1:3)

Very dangerous to look at Gods Image, the one who expresses God fully right in the Face and say, "NOT GOD"... Read 1 Corinthians 12:12-22 and then Read 1 Cor 10:1-4

For many old testament Prophets Called the Angel of the Lord, God and Jehovah worshipping him as he were God himself. How much more worthy is Jesus!!!!

In Love,
Tom
[/FONT]
I appreciate your comments. Jws reject the trinity because the Bible does not teach this. Neither the word Trinity, nor the thought of 3 persons in one God, can be found in the Bible, IMO. Jesus never said he was God but repeatedly referred to himself as God's son.(John 3:16, 10:36) Jesus said his Father had knowledge and authority that Jesus did not. (Matthew 20:23, 24:36) As to the origin of this doctrine that dishonors both God and Christ, this comment from The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) is appropriate:“The Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
i would also say that the word "First Created" is not used as well, which would help your cause. What we are basicaly reading is that Jesus is the beginning of creation. So what does that mean? Dont forget that Jesus exactly represents the Fathers very being and that Father is also called the Beginning of Creation, not only that, but the Beginning and End of all things created. So to see Jesus being called the Beginning or the End of all creation would be expected in my opinion.

1. The term "arche" in Rev 3:14 is utilized in the partitive genitive construction. Both in the NT and LXX, where ever the term "arche" is followed by a genitive phrase ("beginning of the ___") the part of which the term "arche" is assigned is always included as the first part of the category that follows, without exception. (see Deu 11:12-LXX; Jud 7:9-LXX; Mar 1:1; Joh 2:11; 2 Pet 3:4).

We need to ask ourselves, How many beginnings are there? 1,2,3... i believe in only one beginning in which the Eternal Word (Jesus)was already there. (Read 1John1:1-5)

2. Christ was there "in the beginning" of what--eternity? Isn't that a logical inconsistency? Eternity in the past cannot have a beginning. But the beginning of "all things" certainly did. I agree Christ was there at the beginning of all that was created, but that does not imply He was with the Father forever in the past.

That's like me saying my father and I were together from the beginning of our building project so therefore we must assume we were "always" together in the past? See the problem? Christ was created as an Eternal Being at some point between eternity in the past and the beginning of all things created. Perhaps this visual aid would help:




1John1:1-5 - The Eternal Word of Life Col 1:15 - All things created by Jesus John 1:3 - Not one thing created was created apart from Jesus

3. I agree Christ created all things. But that does not prove He existed with the Father from past eternity. As the diagram and the bible testify, Christ was created as an Eternal Being at some point before the angels and universe were created. If they existed together from eternity, who decided who was going to be the Father and who was going to be the Son? Remember, one of them would have to become human and be crucified. Surely they must have played play rock, paper, scissor :). Christ being created and subordinate to the Father simply makes more sense and the biblical evidence is there to support it.

First off Birth or to be born is only an earthly event. No where anywhere do we see birth in the heavens or before the heavens. Jewish People called their heir the Firstborn, that is why we see many Girls being born 1st, not get the title of the Firstborn. We also see this as a title as it can be traded and lost to other siblings.

4. You must be referring to Ps 89:20,27 and Jer 31:9 where David and Ephraim are called "firstborn" [prototokos- LXX] even though they were not the eldest. Many do not realize the term “firstborn”, although used figuratively in this case, still did not lose its primary meaning of a beginning of something that did not exist before.

These passages actually describe the beginning of existence of newly created positions the subjects did not hold before. God “created” positions for Ephraim and David by appointing them firstborn status. So even when prōtotokos is used in a figurative sense, it does not lose its primary meaning-- a beginning of existence!

We also read that Jesus became Firsrtborn at his Earthly birth (Luke 2:7 Hebrews 1:5-6)

5. That's correct. The virgin Mary's "first" [prototokos] child. Just as Christ was the Father's "first" [prototokos] creative act and "First"born Son. (Rev 3:14;Col 1:15)
 
Last edited:

james2ko

Well-Known Member
After reading Hebrews 1:5-6 you will see that Angels were already present when Jesus became the Firstborn son of God and that by use of the words "Today" indicate the world was already created and days existed. The Bible also agrees with this thinking that Jesus being called the Firstborn is heir to God his Father at Matt 28:18 & Rev 1:5 (Ruler of Earth) Col 1:18 also sums it up

6. Actually Heb 1:4 also implies Christ was created:

Heb 1:4 Being made [ginomai]so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they​

Here is Thayer's take on "ginomai":

1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
2a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
3a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made​


Scripture seems to imply Christ created or made the angels (Ps 148:2,5; Psa 104:4). What is interesting is that according to Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionary, one of the LXX related terms for the Hebrew word "create" [bara] is "ginomai". In other words, scripture indicates the angels came into existence at one point [bara-vs 5] by the hand of Christ . To maintain textual consistency, can we conclude Christ came into existence [ginomai] with a much better inheritance than the angels by the hand of the Father? The second part of this verse provides additional evidence supporting Christ being created.

"as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they".​

The Father initiated the God Family by creating His "firstborn"--Christ. Christ, together with the Father, in turn created many other Sons--the angelic hosts and mankind are also sons of the God Family (Job 38:7; Gen 6:2; Luk 20:36). Christ was the "firstborn" (Col 1:15) of those sons. An interesting parallel is formed when we consider how Christ inherited more than all of the "sons" born/created after Him (us and the angels). A curious parallel to the firstborn of every family in Israel yielding more authority and inheriting much more (a double portion) than those "born" after. This verse also refutes those who believe Christ was an angel (although He could have been a "messenger-malak" in the Old Testament]. How could God inspire a distinction of Christ being made [created] better than “the” angels, if He was one?
1St off Jesus could have said the Angels were greater than him at this point... But thats not my point to be made. I Agree that the Father is Greater by being the Father of Jesus. However, that doesnt mean Jesus cannot be exactly like the Father in every way to us their creation. Just as a man and wife are married and the Husband is in a greater roll, they are equall in being Man...

7. Ever wonder why Adam [a type of Christ- Rom 5:14] was created first and was alone for an undetermined period of time while Eve was “created” from him later? Why where they not created together? Apparently, the animal, mammal, and insect kind were created in pairs--why didn’t God follow the same pattern for human kind? Could we logically speculate Christ, Creator of all things, was simply following the example practiced by the Father when He created the very first member of the God family--His firstborn—Jesus Christ. Christ then brought forth Adam –who brought forth Eve. This methodical mode of creation or production is illustrated by Paul:

1 Co 11:3 states:" But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.​

Paul reveals to us a symbolic reference of the creative order that suggests Christ was the first created Being. Take note of the logical consistency employed in the creative order. Verse 3 states the head of every woman is the man, why?-- Verse 8--Because the woman was created, brought forth, or produced from man. Verse 3 claims the head of every man is Christ, why?-- Isa 45:12; Joh 1:3; Gen 1:26 suggests man was created or brought forth by the One who created "all things"--Christ. The head of Christ is God The Father, why? --Col 1:15; Heb 1:4; Rev 3:14, and other passages indicate Christ was brought forth, produced, created by The Father!

We agree and disagree on some things here. Not a JW, good to know, but you do believe close to them

8. I believe the bible interprets itself. I do not conform to any one denomination's belief or creed-- not even my own, which I choose not to disclose.

Not equal in age? I assume you believe Jesus is Created.

9. The term "greater" is defined by Strong's as: G3187 Μείζων meizōn mide'-zone Irregular comparative of G3173; larger (literally or figuratively, specifically in age): - elder, greater (-est), more. Notice Thayer’s Entry: greater, larger, elder, stronger.

For the Father to be greater, yet equal with Christ, would require divine attributes they equally possess as well as divine attribute(s) they do not equally possess. Could co-eternal existence be an attribute Christ does not equally possess with the Father? Could this Greek term imply the Father is not only larger [in a figurative sense]and stronger but also OLDER than His Son? In Rom 9:12, Paul utilizes this same term [meizon] to convey the fact Esau was “older” than Jacob:

It was said unto her, The elder [meizon-G3187] shall serve the younger.​

Not Equal in Power? Are you saying that NOT all Authority is upon Jesus? Explain if possible

10. Can a human king give "all authority" to his son and the son still be subordinate to his father? There is biblical evidence the usage of the term "all" does not denote totality.

Other than whats above, do you have any more verses to support this?

11. Pro 8:22-23, Joh 5:26, Joh 1:1 actually disproves Christ's eternal past existence.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
The way I see it, John 1:1-5 is not a literal description of Jesus being the creator of this world or the whole universe.

I think that John (or whoever the author really was) was using the whole "Word" (or Logos, 1:1), or "Light" (1:5) or "Life" (1:4), merely metaphor symbolizing Jesus, his ministry and his message (or teachings).

Quite often Jesus taught his disciples in parables, and he preached to his audience with words (and miracles). So what better title to give him than calling Logos.

Other than being called christ or messiah, son of god, son of man, he has others attached him to him like the Good Shepherd, for instance. The Shepherd as a title has been used for millennia, as far back as the 3rd millennium BCE, in Sumer. It is title (still talking about Shepherd) that given were given to many kings, as well as to various Sumerian-Akkadian gods. And those kings who each has been called Shepherd, may have never worked as shepherd in the past, so my point is that we are certainly not talking of LITERAL shepherd.

So it is no surprise, if Jesus was called the Light.

To those who become Christians, it would be any stretch of imagination, to view him as person who brought light into life. His messages are supposed to bring hope to people, often redemption and salvation to those who accept Jesus and his messages (gospel). Light could mean Jesus or god, or it could mean gospel, it could mean hope or salvation. There are many different interpretations of what light is, especially in religious context. So we are not really talking about a literal light, but a symbolic one.

So Logos could mean Jesus, or it could be his teachings (or gospel). It doesn't mean Jesus is god or the creator. Logos, like my example of Light could have many different types of interpretations.

I hoped that make sense to anyone.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
The way I see it, John 1:1-5 is not a literal description of Jesus being the creator of this world or the whole universe.

I think that John (or whoever the author really was) was using the whole "Word" (or Logos, 1:1), or "Light" (1:5) or "Life" (1:4), merely metaphor symbolizing Jesus, his ministry and his message (or teachings).

Quite often Jesus taught his disciples in parables, and he preached to his audience with words (and miracles). So what better title to give him than calling Logos.

Other than being called christ or messiah, son of god, son of man, he has others attached him to him like the Good Shepherd, for instance. The Shepherd as a title has been used for millennia, as far back as the 3rd millennium BCE, in Sumer. It is title (still talking about Shepherd) that given were given to many kings, as well as to various Sumerian-Akkadian gods. And those kings who each has been called Shepherd, may have never worked as shepherd in the past, so my point is that we are certainly not talking of LITERAL shepherd.

So it is no surprise, if Jesus was called the Light.

To those who become Christians, it would be any stretch of imagination, to view him as person who brought light into life. His messages are supposed to bring hope to people, often redemption and salvation to those who accept Jesus and his messages (gospel). Light could mean Jesus or god, or it could mean gospel, it could mean hope or salvation. There are many different interpretations of what light is, especially in religious context. So we are not really talking about a literal light, but a symbolic one.

So Logos could mean Jesus, or it could be his teachings (or gospel). It doesn't mean Jesus is god or the creator. Logos, like my example of Light could have many different types of interpretations.

I hoped that make sense to anyone.

John did have a habit of utilizing metaphors to personify Christ. But he made it very clear who was the Logos or Word --Creator of all things-- he spoke of back in John chapter 1:

1Jn 1:1-3 We proclaim to you the One who existed from the beginning, whom we have heard and seen. We saw Him with our own eyes and touched Him with our own hands(impossible to do with an idea or an abstract concept). He is the Word [Logos-G3056] of life. 2 This One who is life itself was revealed to us, and we have seen Him. And now we testify and proclaim to you that He is the One who is eternal life. He was with the Father, and then He was revealed to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. NLT
.​
 

gnostic

The Lost One
james2ko said:
John did have a habit of utilizing metaphors to personify Christ. But he made it very clear who was the Logos or Word --Creator of all things-- he spoke of back in John chapter 1:
1Jn 1:1-3 We proclaim to you the One who existed from the beginning, whom we have heard and seen. We saw Him with our own eyes and touched Him with our own hands(impossible to do with an idea or an abstract concept). He is the Word [Logos-G3056] of life. 2 This One who is life itself was revealed to us, and we have seen Him. And now we testify and proclaim to you that He is the One who is eternal life. He was with the Father, and then He was revealed to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. NLT

Hi James.

There are some NT letters that I have not read in a very long time, so I forgot the contents of them. 1 John is one of them.

So I'm glad you brought this up.

I don't think I have looked at 1 John since I was in my late teen (perhaps), so that's over 20 years ago. So I have just re-read just now, and I can immediately see we have different interpretation to 1 John 1:1-3, and with this whole Logos-thing.

To me, I don't think John mean the "beginning", as in time of CREATION (cf Genesis 1), in verse 1...if that's what you are suggesting.

1 John 1:1 said:
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life

I think it mean exactly what it mean.

The verse is a testimony of when they (the disciples or 12 apostles) - as well as John himself - met and joined Jesus for the first time. Hence the whole thing about seeing him, hearing him and touching him (hopefully not inappropriately :foot:), when Jesus was alive (before death & resurrection thingy), and not about genesis 1 or about Jesus being the creator.

I think it is the same with the 2nd verse:

1 John 1:2 said:
this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us

It is a testimony of John shared with other, about what was revealed in Jesus' teachings, but I doubt very much they had witnessed "eternal life". :no: I think John was saying that in one of Jesus' teachings about eternal life, that he believe what Jesus taught.

Hence, what was "revealed to us", meant exactly that.

Logos as in what Jesus taught them, and not Logos as in the creator.
 
Last edited:

james2ko

Well-Known Member
Hi James.

There are some NT letters that I have not read in a very long time, so I forgot the contents of them. 1 John is one of them.

So I'm glad you brought this up.

I don't think I have looked at 1 John since I was in my late teen (perhaps), so that's over 20 years ago. So I have just re-read just now, and I can immediately see we have different interpretation to 1 John 1:1-3, and with this whole Logos-thing.

To me, I don't think John mean the "beginning", as in time of CREATION (cf Genesis 1), in verse 1...if that's what you are suggesting.



I think it mean exactly what it mean.

The verse is a testimony of when they (the disciples or 12 apostles) - as well as John himself - met and joined Jesus for the first time. Hence the whole thing about seeing him, hearing him and touching him (hopefully not inappropriately :foot:), when Jesus was alive (before death & resurrection thingy), and not about genesis 1 or about Jesus being the creator.

I think it is the same with the 2nd verse:



It is a testimony of John shared with other, about what was revealed in Jesus' teachings, but I doubt very much they had witnessed "eternal life". :no: I think John was saying that in one of Jesus' teachings about eternal life, that he believe what Jesus taught.

Hence, what was "revealed to us", meant exactly that.

Logos as in what Jesus taught them, and not Logos as in the creator.

The context of 1 Joh 1 is irrelevant to the issue being addressed. I was responding to your doubt about Jesus being the "Word" spoken of in John 1 whom you believe did not create the universe..... 1 Joh 1 proves He is that "Word" [Logos]. Thus confirming He was the same "Word" [Logos-G3056] spoken of in Joh 1:3 who created "all things" which would have to include the universe.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
james2ko said:
The context of 1 Joh 1 is irrelevant to the issue being addressed. I was responding to your doubt about Jesus being the "Word" spoken of in John 1 whom you believe did not create the universe..... 1 Joh 1 proves He is that "Word" [Logos]. Thus confirming He was the same "Word" [Logos-G3056] spoken of in Joh 1:3 who created "all things" which would have to include the universe.

I have no doubts in my mind that both John 1 and 1 John 1 were referring to Jesus as the Word or Logos. My disagreement with you is your interpretation of those verses and that of the Jesus/Word being a creator of anything.

Yes, 1 John 1:1-3 confirmed that the Word is the same as that of the Word in John 1:1, but it doesn't in any way confirm that the Word creating anything.

ps

The context to the verses is relevant, and it is obviously important to you. Otherwise, why else would you bring them up?

The difference between you and me, is a matter of interpretation of those context. I'm just not restrained by the "Christian context".
 
Last edited:

james2ko

Well-Known Member
I have no doubts in my mind that both John 1 and 1 John 1 were referring to Jesus as the Word or Logos. My disagreement with you is your interpretation of those verses and that of the Jesus/Word being a creator of anything.

Yes, 1 John 1:1-3 confirmed that the Word is the same as that of the Word in John 1:1, but it doesn't in any way confirm that the Word creating anything.

ps

The context to the verses is relevant, and it is obviously important to you. Otherwise, why else would you bring them up?

The difference between you and me, is a matter of interpretation of those context. I'm just not restrained by the "Christian context".

Scriptures tell us the bible interprets itself (Isa 28:10):

Joh 1:1-3 In the beginning the Word [Logos] already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He existed in the beginning with God. 3 God created everything through Him, and nothing was created except through Him. NLT​

If you admit the "Logos" is Christ, how else would you interpret these passages outside of philosophy (Col 2:8)?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
james2ko said:
Scriptures tell us the bible interprets itself (Isa 28:10):

This is only true to certain extents in which I would agree with you. There are limitations, in which parts of the bible can interpret itself.

The most obvious ones where parts of the bible can be seen as interpreting for itself, are those parts that can be taken literally, but only if they were written unambiguously.

Other parts that were written in metaphoric style don't always interpret itself, because it may have different meanings, or it may be interpret differently by different people (different people who read those parts, for instance Christians and Jews don't always agree with some verses). Verses that were written as allegories, parables, etc, are not always unambiguous. The worse ones are prophecies.

If the whole bible was unambiguous, then you would have Christians and Jews arguing over parts of the OT bible, or even with Christians among themselves.

John 1:1-3 was written metaphorically, and it is certainly not unambiguous.

I used to read John 1:1-3 just like you (even though I was never a Christian), because I had accepted Christian interpretation to John 1. I was however younger then. My view is different now, so I don't take everything at its face value, which require little to no thinking. Back then, I didn't think to question Christian view on the Bible.

When I started my website - Timeless Myths - back in 1999, I approached ancient literature (on myths and legends) quite differently to when I was in my teens and early 20s. I read and research them more thoroughly and attempted to understand these literature without all my earlier preconceptions that I had when I was younger. I approached the bible and other religious texts in the same manner I did when I was working on Timeless Myths - without all the Christian preconceptions that I had in my teens.

Believe it or not, I had the same view as most Christians have on the Creation story, on Satan (I thought Satan was the Devil or Lucifer (Isaiah 14)), and on the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23, cf Isaiah 7:14). I even had the same view on Logos (John 1:1) being the creator.

But re-reading the bible after 1999, my view on these above subjects had changed. I no longer believe that Satan of the OT is the same as that of NT Satan (Devil, Lucifer), that Matthew had ignored the rest of the context of the sign (Isaiah 7:14-17).
 
Last edited:

james2ko

Well-Known Member
This is only true to certain extents in which I would agree with you. There are limitations, in which parts of the bible can interpret itself.

The most obvious ones where parts of the bible can be seen as interpreting for itself, are those parts that can be taken literally, but only if they were written unambiguously.

Other parts that were written in metaphoric style don't always interpret itself, because it may have different meanings, or it may be interpret differently by different people (different people who read those parts, for instance Christians and Jews don't always agree with some verses). Verses that were written as allegories, parables, etc, are not always unambiguous. The worse ones are prophecies.

If the whole bible was unambiguous, then you would have Christians and Jews arguing over parts of the OT bible, or even with Christians among themselves.

John 1:1-3 was written metaphorically, and it is certainly not unambiguous.

I used to read John 1:1-3 just like you (even though I was never a Christian), because I had accepted Christian interpretation to John 1. I was however younger then. My view is different now, so I don't take everything at its face value, which require little to no thinking. Back then, I didn't think to question Christian view on the Bible.

When I started my website - Timeless Myths - back in 1999, I approached ancient literature (on myths and legends) quite differently to when I was in my teens and early 20s. I read and research them more thoroughly and attempted to understand these literature without all my earlier preconceptions that I had when I was younger. I approached the bible and other religious texts in the same manner I did when I was working on Timeless Myths - without all the Christian preconceptions that I had in my teens.

Believe it or not, I had the same view as most Christians have on the Creation story, on Satan (I thought Satan was the Devil or Lucifer (Isaiah 14)), and on the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23, cf Isaiah 7:14). I even had the same view on Logos (John 1:1) being the creator.

But re-reading the bible after 1999, my view on these above subjects had changed. I no longer believe that Satan of the OT is the same as that of NT Satan (Devil, Lucifer), that Matthew had ignored the rest of the context of the sign (Isaiah 7:14-17).

You seem like a pretty smart guy. It seems you had it right originally. Why would you allow someone else's opinion of scripture to alter yours? Do you not trust your own ability to interpret scripture?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
james2ko said:
You seem like a pretty smart guy. It seems you had it right originally.

Right?

Looking back at that time when I was in my mid-teen to early 20s, I hardly think my view was right.

james2ko said:
Why would you allow someone else's opinion of scripture to alter yours? Do you not trust your own ability to interpret scripture?

I think you have it all wrong, james.

I followed the same opinions and the same interpretation of others, when I was younger. I didn't think to question or challenge Christian interpretations of the bible.

I was surrounded by Christians during those years, which included my elder sister, even though I had never became a Christian myself.

She was the one who gave me my 1st bible. I was even nearly baptized and converted to her church, when I was still in my mid-teen (I was probably 15 or 16 or even 17 then; I can't be sure how old I was, because I didn't keep diary); the water was ready and I had members of her church, standing by to witness my baptism. At the very last moment, I didn't go through with the baptism, because I came to realize I was joining the church because of my elder sister was a member and because of her faith, not my own.

Perhaps, I had an epiphany then.

I had tried to join another (and different) church, but that didn't work well...actually it was worse than attempting to join my sister's church. I nearly came to blows with the pastor, over some arguments. After this, my interests in religion waned, partly because of my quarrel with the pastor, and partly because I was busy with my studies.

But that's beside point. And getting back to your question, I believed that I was less experienced back then in reading the bible, or any other literature for that matter, whether they be religious or not.

Between the age of 15 or 16 and 21, I was just following what others were taught. I didn't trust my own ability back then to the scriptures, so I had believe whatever they had believe. So I had other people's opinion of scriptures instead of my own.

It was only after 1999, after I had started Timeless Myths, that my interests in mythology led me back to my fascination with religion again. But not just with Christianity, but all sorts of religions, including that of ancient pagan religions, from Greece and Rome.

Creating the site, I did my own reading and my own researches, using translated primary sources of both ancient and medieval literature, to piece together scattered myths.

My opinion of the bible have changed now (that began in 2000 or 2001) when I read the bible once again, not because of what other people think, but because I now rely on my own reading and on my own analysis and interpretations of the bible. I believed that I understand the bible better now than when I was younger.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
Right? Looking back at that time when I was in my mid-teen to early 20s, I hardly think my view was right. I think you have it all wrong, james.

You think I have it wrong? Don't take this the wrong way. But this statement suggests uncertainty. I "know" I'm right that Christ was the Creator based on the plain literal reading of scripture not someone elses symbolic/metaphorical/allegorical interpretation. See the difference?

I followed the same opinions and the same interpretation of others, when I was younger. I didn't think to question or challenge Christian interpretations of the bible.

But you are still following the interpretation of others. Instead of your family and church now you base your interpretation on the authors of the literature you read during your research.

I was surrounded by Christians during those years, which included my elder sister, even though I had never became a Christian myself.

She was the one who gave me my 1st bible. I was even nearly baptized and converted to her church, when I was still in my mid-teen (I was probably 15 or 16 or even 17 then; I can't be sure how old I was, because I didn't keep diary); the water was ready and I had members of her church, standing by to witness my baptism. At the very last moment, I didn't go through with the baptism, because I came to realize I was joining the church because of my elder sister was a member and because of her faith, not my own.

Perhaps, I had an epiphany then.

I had tried to join another (and different) church, but that didn't work well...actually it was worse than attempting to join my sister's church. I nearly came to blows with the pastor, over some arguments. After this, my interests in religion waned, partly because of my quarrel with the pastor, and partly because I was busy with my studies.

But that's beside point. And getting back to your question, I believed that I was less experienced back then in reading the bible, or any other literature for that matter, whether they be religious or not.

Between the age of 15 or 16 and 21, I was just following what others were taught. I didn't trust my own ability back then to the scriptures, so I had believe whatever they had believe. So I had other people's opinion of scriptures instead of my own.

It was only after 1999, after I had started Timeless Myths, that my interests in mythology led me back to my fascination with religion again. But not just with Christianity, but all sorts of religions, including that of ancient pagan religions, from Greece and Rome.

Creating the site, I did my own reading and my own researches, using translated primary sources of both ancient and medieval literature, to piece together scattered myths.

My opinion of the bible have changed now (that began in 2000 or 2001) when I read the bible once again, not because of what other people think, but because I now rely on my own reading and on my own analysis and interpretations of the bible. I believed that I understand the bible better now than when I was younger.

The bible (in its original languages) really does interpret itself. Passages should be taken literal until proven otherwise by logic, common sense, or other passages. It was only when I took this approach that the bible started making sense.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
james2ko said:
But you are still following the interpretation of others. Instead of your family and church now you base your interpretation on the authors of the literature you read during your research.

You stated why I wasn't thinking for myself, and I wasn't when I was younger. I'm now draw my own conclusion of what any part of the bible - through my own reading, my own research, through my own analysis, instead of relying what the church say.

I used to believe that OT satan and the NT devil were one and the same. I now know that it is only based on Christian interpretation. But I have come to realisation that the Christians had changed the old testAment satan to suit the Christian agenda, but has no basis when reading without (Christian) preconceptions.

There are no war in heaven found in the OT, the so-called rebellion of angels are only based on revelation, but only fanatics and idiots take anything in Revelation seriously.

Another Christian myth dispel is that the serpent in Eden with Satan or the Devil. Nothing in the genesis indicate that the serpent and satan are one and the same. I had believe this serpent-satan garbage for years, before I had come to realise that this is based solely on traditional Christian faulty and flawed logic or interpretation.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
You stated why I wasn't thinking for myself, and I wasn't when I was younger. I'm now draw my own conclusion of what any part of the bible - through my own reading, my own research, through my own analysis, instead of relying what the church say.

I used to believe that OT satan and the NT devil were one and the same. I now know that it is only based on Christian interpretation. But I have come to realisation that the Christians had changed the old testAment satan to suit the Christian agenda, but has no basis when reading without (Christian) preconceptions.

There are no war in heaven found in the OT, the so-called rebellion of angels are only based on revelation, but only fanatics and idiots take anything in Revelation seriously.

Another Christian myth dispel is that the serpent in Eden with Satan or the Devil. Nothing in the genesis indicate that the serpent and satan are one and the same. I had believe this serpent-satan garbage for years, before I had come to realise that this is based solely on traditional Christian faulty and flawed logic or interpretation.

Has it ever occurred to you perhaps the sources on whom you base your "faith" are the ones with the flawed logic and interpretation?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
james2ko said:
Has it ever occurred to you perhaps the sources on whom you base your "faith" are the ones with the flawed logic and interpretation?

Sources?

You mean the gospels, epistles, Revelation, Genesis, Isaiah. Because these are the sources I am talking about.

Do you not understand what I mean by "my own reading" or "my own research". I am talking about reading and analysing those sources for myself. I based my conclusions on these reading, and not someone else's analysis or interpretation, and not from books of modern authors or scholars.

The only time I didn't think for myself with regards to bible readings, was when I was younger (over 20 years ago), like from the people I used to know from my sister's church or the other church I nearly joined.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Jesus as a Manifestation of God, represented God, therefore It is said He was Creator. Because He was representing the image of God.
But the individuality of Jesus before was He born did not exist. Though the Manifestations of God always existed. For example Krishna was also a Manifestation of God. If it was said through Krishna everything was created, it is also correct.

It is like, I show you a Lamp. And tell you, by this light the world has always been lighted. I don't mean this 'individual' lamp. I am talking about 'light' as the essence of brightness, which always existed. Off course this lamp did not exist always before, but this 'light', always existed, through other lamps or the Sun.

So, when it is said through Him everything is created, it doesn't mean the individuality of Jesus, but the essence that is Manifested in Jesus. The Essence of Holy Spirit.


"But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life." 1 Corinthians 8:6

"through whom we have been given life", is a spiritual life. Spiritual Resurrection, not to be confused with physical resurrection, which to me is a superstition.
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
The only time I didn't think for myself with regards to bible readings, was when I was younger (over 20 years ago), like from the people I used to know from my sister's church or the other church I nearly joined.

And you seem to be very disappointed when you trusted them, aren't you.
I feel you. :D
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
Sources?

You mean the gospels, epistles, Revelation, Genesis, Isaiah. Because these are the sources I am talking about.

Do you not understand what I mean by "my own reading" or "my own research". I am talking about reading and analysing those sources for myself. I based my conclusions on these reading, and not someone else's analysis or interpretation, and not from books of modern authors or scholars.

The only time I didn't think for myself with regards to bible readings, was when I was younger (over 20 years ago), like from the people I used to know from my sister's church or the other church I nearly joined.

So if you are basing your interpretation on sola scriptura. You should know that it states we are to interpret it by putting passages together from both testaments like a puzzle. You mentioned nothing in Genesis indicates the serpent and satan are the same. You also reject the book of Revelation which plainly reveals the identity of the serpent (Rev 12:9). In essence what you are implying is since nothing in chapter one of a historically accurate book specifies a character and since you do not believe a word of the last chapter of the same book, you conclude we cannot know the identity of the character. Do you see the disconnect in logic? (It's proper name is fallacy of the excluded middle).
 
Top