John's Word: Did Jesus create the world?

[Shermana]

You also reject the book of Revelation which plainly reveals the identity of the serpent (Rev 12:9)

There's no reason to associate "The ancient Serpent" as the same serpent in the garden who lost his legs.

 

[Shermana]

Has anyone mentioned the issue of Philo's Logos Theology and "Wisdom" being the vehicle of which the world is made THROUGH? (Dia in this case would mean "through" by 'by", and not "originated").

 

[james2ko]

There's no reason to associate "The ancient Serpent" as the same serpent in the garden who lost his legs.

No offense but I think I'll stick to an apostle's interpretation of the identity of the serpent.

 

[Shermana]

No offense but I think I'll stick to an apostle's interpretation of the identity of the serpent.

No offense, but you seem to have no real reason to base your assertion that John identified "The old Serpent" as the same serpent in the garden.

I could also say that two disciples who were speaking to Jesus directly identified the ancient serpent as a giant cosmic dragon whose body itself serves as the prison for tortured souls in the Pistis Sophia.

I guess the Red Dragon who chases the Baby from the Virgin is working for this little serpent?

 

[Shermana]

How interesting that a little serpent would be called "The Great Dragon". Just HAD to be the same being, no other possible explanation!

So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

[james2ko]

No offense, but you seem to have no real reason to base your assertion that John identified "The old Serpent" as the same serpent in the garden. I could also say that two disciples who were speaking to Jesus directly identified the ancient serpent as a giant cosmic dragon whose body itself serves as the prison for tortured souls in the Pistis Sophia. I guess the Red Dragon who chases the Baby from the Virgin is working for this little serpent?

Yes, the text and some basic logic would indicate the dragon is a symbolic representation of satan--the serpent of old [Genesis] who Paul says deceived Eve (2 Co 11:3). And assuming you are speaking of "Tartarus", it is a real place under the earth.

 

[gnostic]

So if you are basing your interpretation on sola scriptura.

No, not really.

You should know that it states we are to interpret it by putting passages together from both testaments like a puzzle.

So have I.

But the problem is that I have learn to not force new meaning or new context into any verse of the Old Testament.

If the New Testament verses matched with the Old Testament, without trying to force it to fit, then I could accept it.

I don't know if you have ever being to my website - Timeless Myths - but a lot of my works - involved in reading, researching and piecing all the different versions of myth together.

BUT I tried very hard to avoid forcing the context of one text into another.

For instance, if I read Text X (from author A) and Text Y (from author B), and they are about a myth of the same person, but there are difference between two texts, then I will either tell both versions X & Y, separately or together.

(Together, if a large part of both texts are the same, with some small different details, and informing my readers of the differences. But if they are completely different, I might create two webpages, telling each version separately.)

What I won't do (or what I would try to avoid) is create Text Z, from both Text X & Text Y. Creating Text Z would be completely rewriting both myths to create a new myth.

I have seen many modern authors and film makers, changing, or worse replacing old myths, for whatever purpose. I'm sure you know what I am talking about. You have read novels and seen movies where producer, director or script writer changed the stories in their film (or tv) versions.

Christians, past and present, have done this.

For instance, Matthew have done this (in Matthew 1:23), when he quoted from Isaiah 7:14. The changes he forced upon Isaiah's verse is the virgin birth and the messiah.

Nothing in that single verse stated that it was miracle virgin birth. Nothing in that single verse say that this is about the messiah. It only come from Matthew's interpretation of the verse; for the verse certainly doesn't interpret itself as Matthew had claimed (virgin birth and messiah).

Matthew ignored the rest of Isaiah 7; he ignored why Isaiah had given Ahaz this sign? And worse still, Matthew do not mention the following verses Isaiah 15-17. Verse 14, together with 15, 16 & 17 make up THE COMPLETE SIGN, and the reason for the sign being given.

Matthew and Christians after him, have taken this verse from Isaiah, completely out of context: out of context with the verse and out of context with the whole chapter.

As to the serpent (in Genesis) and the Devil (in NT)....

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).

I have read about Satan, the Devil and the serpent from other sources.

What make you think I haven't?

If we are looking at John's Logos, then we only see places (John 1 & 1 John 1) where the Logos symbolized Jesus. I have not found any other places, which has Jesus is the Word. Not a large variety in the bible.

There are a few gnostic texts, in which Jesus played the role of a creator - in particular, The Apocryphon of John (or Secret Book of John), but you wouldn't accept these books would you? None in the OT or NT apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.

Here (in The Apocryphon of John), Jesus is the aeon Autogenes.

According to The Apocryphon of John, Jesus (Autogenes) didn't create the physical world or physical universe, or the humans. Autogenes created the heavens and other lesser aeons.

The creator responsible for creating the physical universe and the first (physical) man (Adam) was a demiurge, the archon Yaldabaoth. Yaldabaoth is what Christians would refer to as the Devil, the personification of evil and of tyrant. Yaldabaoth was an offspring of the aeon Sophia (Wisdom).

I am not getting sidetracked with gnostic text about Autogenes and Yaldabaoth. I do have a point (or two...or perhaps in 3).

In later section of the Apocryphon where Jesus converse with John, Jesus revealed that there were no talking serpent that lie to and tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. The person who banned Adam and Eve was Yaldabaoth himself, because the evil archon didn't want them to wisdom, or gnosis.

The gnosis would have enabled Adam and Eve leave the material or physical confines of their bodies, and reached the pleroma (Gnostic version of heaven). The reason why Yaldabaoth wanted them confined in the physical mortal bodies is that Yaldabaoth can enslave the soul or spark, and used the souls to empower him.

Now, here is the interesting part of Apocryphon. According to Jesus, he was the who persuaded Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (or the Tree of Gnosis). Jesus played the role of the serpent, but more like that of the Titan Prometheus than the Christian traditional Devil.

Sources:

The Apocryphon of John, translated by Frederick Wisse, Nag Hammadi Library (from the Gnosis Archives).
Gnostic Cosmogony, Dark Mirrors of Heaven (my site).
​

 

[james2ko]

As to the serpent (in Genesis) and the Devil (in NT).... I have read about Satan, the Devil and the serpent from other sources. What make you think I haven't?

1. Your own posts? Did you forget when I bought to your attention the influence other "sources" had on your flawed interpretation of the serpent in Genesis, you claimed to base your interpretation on the sources from the sola scriptura exclusively:

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

Now you're claiming to also include the influence of gnostic sources??? You baaaaad boy .

For instance, Matthew have done this (in Matthew 1:23), when he quoted from Isaiah 7:14. The changes he forced upon Isaiah's verse is the virgin birth and the messiah.

Nothing in that single verse stated that it was miracle virgin birth. Nothing in that single verse say that this is about the messiah. It only come from Matthew's interpretation of the verse; for the verse certainly doesn't interpret itself as Matthew had claimed (virgin birth and messiah).

2. Mary herself claimed to be a virgin when told she was going to have a child:

Luk 1:34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"​

The same exact Greek terms for "know", "not", and "man" [G1097, G3756, G435) were used in the LXX describing Lot's two virgin daughters (Gen 19:8- Aben Ezra reports he also had two married daughters who perished in Sodom-Gen 19:15). Additionally, the Greek term translated "virgin" in Mat 1:23 is the same LXX term which appears in Lev 21:14:

"A widow or a divorced woman or a defiled woman or a harlot—these he shall not marry; but he shall take a virgin [G3933] of his own people as wife."​

Better yet is Gen 24:16 where all four Greek terms appear together in one passage describing the virgin Rebecca:

"Now the young woman was very beautiful to behold, a virgin [G3933]; no [G1097] man [G435] had known [G3756] her. And she went down to the well, filled her pitcher, and came up."​

Remember, the LXX was written long before Matthew. This is all irrefutable evidence against those who question the term's [virgin] translation. Oh, but there's more......The most famous medieval Jewish Bible commentator, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi,) who was obviously opposed to any Christological interpretation of the Tanakh, nevertheless explained that in Son 1:3 " alamot" (the plural of "almah" translated as "virgin" in Isa 7:14) means "btulot" (virgins) and refers metaphorically to the nations. Like I mentioned earlier, the bible, in its original languages, interprets itself. The problem is not many are willing to take the time or have the desire to learn and "unbiasedly" dig in to the Hebrew and Greek.

Matthew ignored the rest of Isaiah 7; he ignored why Isaiah had given Ahaz this sign? And worse still, Matthew do not mention the following verses Isaiah 15-17. Verse 14, together with 15, 16 & 17 make up THE COMPLETE SIGN, and the reason for the sign being given. Matthew and Christians after him, have taken this verse from Isaiah, completely out of context: out of context with the verse and out of context with the whole chapter.

3. That is highly unlikely. Luke reports Christ explained it to him (Luk 24:27).

Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them [His disciples] in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.​

If you feel Matthew took Isaiah out of context, you obviously have the correct context. Mind sharing it?

 

[gnostic]

2. Mary herself claimed to be a virgin when told she was going to have a child:
Luk 1:34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"

Don't really care about what Mary say in Luke's.

I know that both gospels narrated of Mary's miraculous virgin birth and I'm not denying that what they were writing about about a virgin birth. I completely understand the virgin birth mythos.

My post is not about denying the virgin birth took place in either gospel, but that Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 had anything to do with the messiah or with the virgin birth.

Do not confuse the virgin birth story with Matthew's quote (Matthew 1:23) as being one and the same. I believed that Matthew had misquoted and misused Isaiah's verse.

If you feel Matthew took Isaiah out of context, you obviously have the correct context. Mind sharing it?

I have already told you what the correct context is.

The proper and correct context is reading the COMPLETE SIGN along with whole chapter 7, as well as the next chapter - Isaiah 8:1-18.

The complete sign may have started with verse 7:14, but the following verses -15, 16 & 17 are also part of the sign.

Below, in RED, are all the verses are part of the sign:

13 Then Isaiah said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He [the child, Immanuel] shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child [again, Immanuel] knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings [Israel and Aram] you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

Verses 15 & 16 also referred to the child - Immanuel. Can't you bl@@dy see that???

I don't know how I can be clearer than that.

The "two kings" in Isaiah 7:16, clearly referred to Pekah (of Israel) and Rezin (of Aram), and their lands (Israel and Aram, respectively).

These verses 7:14-17 is clearly connected to the event happening in Judah at the beginning of the chapter (7:1):

1 In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem, but could not mount an attack against it. 2 When the house of David heard that Aram had allied itself with Ephraim, the heart of Ahaz[a] and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind.

The child in verses 15 & 16 is clearly Immanuel.

What do you think 7:14-17 are saying, if it isn't a sign for Ahaz?

If 7:14 is about Jesus, then shouldn't 7:15-17 be about Jesus too?

Isaiah 8:6-8 also linked Immanuel with what was happening in Judah, with Ahaz's neighbors (Aram and Israel) and with the King of Assyria.

6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

And beside all that, other than Matthew's quote in Matthew 1:23, not once was Jesus ever called by the name - Immanuel - not even by Matthew himself in his version of the gospel. Why is that?

 

[Shermana]

Yes, the text and some basic logic would indicate the dragon is a symbolic representation of satan--the serpent of old [Genesis] who Paul says deceived Eve (2 Co 11:3). And assuming you are speaking of "Tartarus", it is a real place under the earth.

Ah, "basic logic", well sorry, I think "basic logic" implies that the "Great Dragon" can't possibly be a little snake. I like the idea of calling any stretch of an interpretation we want to be "basic logic", except mine is more logical that it's NOT referring to the serpent of the garden. Isn't logic subjective.

As for "Tartarus", please show that it's a place beneath the Earth as opposed to Hades.

 

[james2ko]

Ah, "basic logic", well sorry, I think "basic logic" implies that the "Great Dragon" can't possibly be a little snake.
I like the idea of calling any stretch of an interpretation we want to be "basic logic", except mine is more logical that it's NOT referring to the serpent of the garden. Isn't logic subjective.

Great dragon being a little snake logical? C'mon Shermana. I know you have more sense than that. And as I said, scripture does contain symbolic representations which it clearly defines. The logic I'm referring to is unbiasedly combining Paul's testimony in 2 Co 11 (the whole chapter) with John's statements in Revelation and coming up with a logically sound conclusion on the identity of the serpent.

As for "Tartarus", please show that it's a place beneath the Earth as opposed to Hades.

Topic for another thread and day.....

 

[Shermana]

Great dragon being a little snake logical? C'mon Shermana. I know you have more sense than that. And as I said, scripture does contain symbolic representations which it clearly defines. The logic I'm referring to is unbiasedly combining Paul's testimony in 2 Co 11 (the whole chapter) with John's statements in Revelation and coming up with a logically sound conclusion on the identity of the serpent.



Topic for another thread and day.....

Ummm, do you seriously not understand what I meant? You're the one saying the Great Dragon is a little snake. Not me.

There is absolutely nothing logical about Paul referring to the Snake in Cor 2:11 that deceived Eve being the Great Dragon mentioned by John. It just doesn't work. Sorry. You can say your view is "unbiased" all you want. It is biased. You're trying to force fit the "Great Dragon" to become the "Little serpent" Paul refers to as if they're the same being. They're not. You can't just say whatever you want to interpret the "Symbolic language" and call it "logic". Anyone can do that. You could say anything is "logical" and is the "Right interpretation" of the "symbolism". Doesn't make it right.

Now THAT is logic.

I'll be happy to explain in more detail how there's other interpretations that are far more logical if you'd like.

 

[james2ko]

Ummm, do you seriously not understand what I meant? You're the one saying the Great Dragon is a little snake. Not me.

Never said a literal Great Dragon was a little snake. That's what you said and implied from my statement.

There is absolutely nothing logical about Paul referring to the Snake in Cor 2:11 that deceived Eve being the Great Dragon mentioned by John. It just doesn't work. Sorry. You can say your view is "unbiased" all you want. It is biased. You're trying to force fit the "Great Dragon" to become the "Little serpent" Paul refers to as if they're the same being. They're not. You can't just say whatever you want to interpret the "Symbolic language" and call it "logic". Anyone can do that. You could say anything is "logical" and is the "Right interpretation" of the "symbolism". Doesn't make it right.

The titles "Great Dragon" and "serpent" symbolize character-- not size. This characterization of names is a consistent theme throughout scripture. There's absolutely no scriptural evidence supporting any other argument. I guess that makes us both "biased"

I'll be happy to explain in more detail how there's other interpretations that are far more logical if you'd like.

I've read them all. The most logical to me is what I've explained.

 

[Shermana]

Never said a literal Great Dragon was a little snake. That's what you said and implied from my statement.

Oh so you're saying the Great Dragon, who is the "Old Serpent" is NOT the same entity as the Serpent of the Garden. For a second there I thought that was the whole premise of your argument against me...oh wait it is. You just forgot what the verse says or something.

The titles "Great Dragon" and "serpent" symbolize character-- not size. This characterization of names is a consistent theme throughout scripture. There's absolutely no scriptural evidence supporting any other argument. I guess that makes us both "biased"

There's no scriptural evidence supporting your argument. I have no problem admitting my view is biased. Everything is biased. If I said the sky is blue, it's biased. The issue is what kind of bias is fueling our opinion. Is it a bias of a pursuit of truth or a bias towards pursuing a traditionalist party line. Now if you want to say that "Great Dragon" symbolizes character, that's great! Good luck proving that!

I've read them all. The most logical to me is what I've explained.

Ok, well what's logical to you is illogical to me, and I'd imagine it'd be illogical to anyone else with an objective understanding of what the verses actually say.

 

[james2ko]

Oh so you're saying the Great Dragon, who is the "Old Serpent" is NOT the same entity as the Serpent of the Garden. For a second there I thought that was the whole premise of your argument against me...oh wait it is. You just forgot what the verse says or something.

If you cannot follow a simple trend of thought, how do you expect anyone to take your argument seriously? Go re-read my posts.

There's no scriptural evidence supporting your argument.

There's plenty..my friend..Your subjectivity will not allow you to see it.

I have no problem admitting my view is biased. Everything is biased. If I said the sky is blue, it's biased. The issue is what kind of bias is fueling our opinion. Is it a bias of a pursuit of truth or a bias towards pursuing a traditionalist party line. Now if you want to say that "Great Dragon" symbolizes character, that's great! Good luck proving that. Ok, well what's logical to you is illogical to me, and I'd imagine it'd be illogical to anyone else with an objective understanding of what the verses actually say.

Oh you must mean anyone else who holds your objective understanding of what the verses actually say. I don't like the way this discussion is headed so this will be my last post to you on this topic.

 

[james2ko]

I have already told you what the correct context is. The proper and correct context is reading the COMPLETE SIGN along with whole chapter 7, as well as the next chapter - Isaiah 8:1-18.The complete sign may have started with verse 7:14, but the following verses -15, 16 & 17 are also part of the sign. Below, in RED, are all the verses are part of the sign:Verses 15 & 16 also referred to the child - Immanuel. Can't you bl@@dy see that??? I don't know how I can be clearer than that. The "two kings" in Isaiah 7:16, clearly referred to Pekah (of Israel) and Rezin (of Aram), and their lands (Israel and Aram, respectively). These verses 7:14-17 is clearly connected to the event happening in Judah at the beginning of the chapter (7:1):The child in verses 15 & 16 is clearly Immanuel. What do you think 7:14-17 are saying, if it isn't a sign for Ahaz? Isaiah 8:6-8 also linked Immanuel with what was happening in Judah, with Ahaz's neighbors (Aram and Israel) and with the King of Assyria.

1. Let's try and break it down for you. Like several OT prophecies, the sign of the virgin birth is dual in nature. It has a prior and later fulfillment. Ahaz was afraid the recent alliance between Israel and Syria would tip the balance of power and spell Judah's doom. God, however, assures Ahaz through Isaiah that no such thing would happen--in fact, within 65 years, Israel itself would was completely gone from the land (Isaiah 7:8)!

The virgin birth, who was most likely one within Ahaz's house, was a sign from God that He would surely bring this to pass. Further, before the child could distinguish good from evil, both kings of Israel and Syria would be dead,(vs 16) which was fulfilled within two years of Isaiah's prophecy (2 Ki 15:30--fulfilled in approx. two years ;16:9-fulfilled in about a year)!

Unfortunately, neither Isaiah nor the authors of the books of Kings and Chronicles document the virgin birth in Ahaz's time. We are left to assume that a son named Immanuel was indeed born to a virgin in Ahaz's household or it would have been a worthless sign to Ahaz. Based on the fact Jesus expounded all of the OT passages about Himself to His disciples along with the mention of at least part of the initial fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, leaves very little doubt the prior virgin birth took place. But it's really of no consequence. The more important latter fulfillment of a virgin birth was confirmed and recorded.

If 7:14 is about Jesus, then shouldn't 7:15-17 be about Jesus too?

2. Not necessarily. The bible contains several one verse Messianic prophecies where the succeeding verses do not apply.

And beside all that, other than Matthew's quote in Matthew 1:23, not once was Jesus ever called by the name - Immanuel - not even by Matthew himself in his version of the gospel. Why is that?

3. God wasn't going to make it that easy for just anyone to understand, He made that apparent in Isa 28:9-11;Mar 4:11-12 and other passages. (Contrary to popular belief, God is not offering salvation to everyone in this age). Immanuel was just one of many names characterizing the Messiah. In Hebrew, it means "God with Us". Isaiah did later refer to the Messiah as "God" (Isa 9:6) and how many times was Christ referred to as "God" in the NT? Additionally,"Christ" means"anointed" or "anointed one". Jesus applied the term "anointed"or "anointed one" to Himself when he quoted Isa 61:1 in Luke 4:18-21. So if Christ Himself confirmed Isaiah wrote about Him in chapter 61, I think it's a pretty safe bet he also referred to Christ in chapter 7.

Don't really care about what Mary say in Luke's. I know that both gospels narrated of Mary's miraculous virgin birth and I'm not denying that what they were writing about about a virgin birth. I completely understand the virgin birth mythos. My post is not about denying the virgin birth took place in either gospel, but that Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 had anything to do with the messiah or with the virgin birth. Do not confuse the virgin birth story with Matthew's quote (Matthew 1:23) as being one and the same. I believed that Matthew had misquoted and misused Isaiah's verse.

4. Let's think this through for a moment. Christ explained all the passages in the OT concerning Himself to Matthew. Matthew later associates Isa 7:14 with Christ and quotes Mary admitting she was a virgin. Isa 7:16 was fulfilled within two years of Isaiah's prophecy and recorded. Since the bible (in its original language and context) claims it does not contradict or essentially lie, then we must conclude Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Ahaz's time. If you can't come to that conclusion, then I'm afraid your" faith" in gnostic and or other sources far surpasses that of scripture.

 

[Shermana]

If you cannot follow a simple trend of thought, how do you expect anyone to take your argument seriously? Go re-read my posts.

Sigh. You talk about subjectivity and then try to pretend like only your line of thought is valid, especially when the connection simply doesn't work unless you force and twist it.

Now I understand that it's a mainstream Christian position to associate "The ancient Serpent" who is the "Great Dragon" (I'm not sure if they read the whole verse where it calls him the "Great Dragon" or the whole passage for that matter and I highly doubt they do), but it's simply a ludicrous position. The two MUST be the same for some reason. I guess he just gave up his wings when he settled in the garden.

There's plenty..my friend..Your subjectivity will not allow you to see it.

Oh the irony.

Oh you must mean anyone else who holds your objective understanding of what the verses actually say.

That's basically what you're implying. Except mine doesn't involve vast "Subjectivity" and stretching metaphors to make a little Serpent "The Great Dragon". Did this Serpent have wings when he flew down to fight the Saints?

I don't like the way this discussion is headed so this will be my last post to you on this topic.

So be it.

 

[gnostic]

We are getting sidetracked on this topic, and I will admit that I am to blame.

With regards to the topic of virgin birth, I have started a new thread on Isaiah 7:14 - ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant".

This new topic deal with "harad" than "almah", where I compared other OT references of "harad", whether it should be translated "with a child" or "is pregnant" (both present tense), or KJV "shall conceive" (future tense).

Hope that you will contribute here, james2ko and Shermana.

 

[sincerly]

When we come across the Biblical creation, we normally usually assume we are talking about the few chapters of the Genesis. God created the world, creature and man in 6 days, and then narrative about Adam and Eve.

The Christians also believed in the New Testament, particularly what is found in the Gospel according to John, chapter 1, verses 1-18. It associate the Word (as well as the Light) with Jesus.

Now that not unusual. Authors in the past and present, have long compared figure or character with animals (eg. strong like lion), with elements (eg. she ran like the wind) or even with inanimated objects. The Egyptians have compared and associated their gods with certain animals, eg. Horus as falcon, Wadjet with cobra, etc.

What John says:

Word is Jesus; this is implied with God was made flesh and lived among them (humans). [1:14]

It says that the Word is God (which is the reason why some Christians believed that Jesus is God), and the Word is with God. [1:1]

The Word is God's "only begotten son". [1:18] (Which to my mind, contradicts Word being God from 1:1; can a father be a son?)

Word existed before the world was ever created. [1:2]

And that the Word was involved in the creation: [1:3]



Well, I want to a poll on John's version.

Do you believe what John wrote literally? That Jesus have existed before the creation, and was involved with the creation?

Or do you believe that can only be understood as a metaphor?

Hi Gnostic, Polls are man's inventions to try to sway another man's opinion who hasn't looked into/studied the subject for themselves.

This thread is 4 1/2 years old and a total of what--55? responded to your pole? In that time---with human's propensity to change their minds---how valid is even those numbers?

In this thread you made some assumptions and insinuations based on your own biased opinions---as is clearly seen in your bottom "signature". The Bible is a History of mankind and the Creator GOD. However, in its pages is seen the happenings which included events which transpired before the Creation of this world/earth and will resume in a "newly created "earth" when this one is "destroyed as prophesied in those pages".

You have labeled the Scriptures a myth and the Creator GOD as a myth and that is your perogative; However, man's theories/speculation do not answer nor convince those of us who read those Scriptures/see what is outside/and inside of us that it all came about "From nothing".

Yes, you did take it off topic in the same way other topices were and with the same promotion of the ideas at the bottom of your pages. "myths?!!"---that's your choice, but not mine.

 

[Monotheist 101]

I think if Jesus is considered God, It would imply that Jesus created the world.. I personally disagree with the statement.. "Jesus created the world"