Question on the Word in John

[Terry Sampson]

Hello Terry. There a group of videos I did that may help in this conversation. A few of them cover the specific example of what is found in John 1.

Ehav,
Some tidbits that may or may not shed light on my comment that you responded to.

• Harel's hands posted this thread, but ...
  
• I have reason to believe that he did so in response to or as a consequence of my suggestion to him to take a question public, here in RF, that he first posed to me privately.
• Specifically, my suggestion to Harel was:
  • "I've considered trying to "explain" the part of the sentence that you're curious about, but I give up. You may want to post a public inquiry about it. Maybe someone who believes in that space and time can actually precede the existence of created things can shed light where I can't."

• In my Post #139 of this thread, I asked Harel:
  • "Out of curiosity, do you think the following statement could be conceivable within Judaism and, if so, how would you explain it if you read it?
    • In the beginning was the Shekhina, and the Shekhina was with God, and the Shekhina was God."
• To which Harel responded in Post #141:
  • "This may be the most problematic part of the verse: How can something be "with" God?"
• To which I responded in Post #142:
  
  • I was just curious to see whether or not you might be able to handle an alternative to "the Word". Don't fuss with it.
• To which Harel responded in Post #145:
  • "I fussed with it until I came up with that answer (with help from a fellow Jew ). That's the answer: how can anything be with God? Either it's God or not. If it's not, then what are you (not necessarily you you, but anyone in general) saying? That God is not all that there is?"
• To which I responded in Post #162:
  • "I have some ideas that I was going to run by Ehav4Ever (which I still haven't done)."
• To which you responded in Post #180:
  • " Hello Terry. There a group of videos I did that may help in this conversation. A few of them cover the specific example of what is found in John 1."

• Although I took and take your offer of videos that you've posted as well-intentioned, and may take you up on your offer later, I already regret meddling in this thread and am reluctant to prolong the agony.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hello, Harel13. I stated in a previous post, in the beginning' does not mean that God had a beginning. and you agreed:
(

Yes, I agree.

)
Looking at Genesis 1:1, it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So the heavens and the earth had a beginning. I was reading Exodus chapter 4 today and see that God appointed Aaron to be the spokesman for Moses, although He first wanted Moses to be the spokesman.

 

[Harel13]

I was reading Exodus chapter 4 today and see that God appointed Aaron to be the spokesman for Moses, although He first wanted Moses to be the spokesman.

Okay, so?

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, so?

I'm not drawing any conclusions yet but it seems God spoke to the pharaoh by means of Moses and Aaron. He spoke directly to Moses in that chapter. And told Moses to speak in his behalf. I was basically wondering if you have any comments about that.
Basically, Moses had a beginning. God did not.

 

[YoursTrue]

John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.

In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began. Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.

I hope this makes sense...

Yes it makes sense, and that is one reason why I wrote about Moses and Pharaoh and God in exodus chapter 4 from the tanach. Moses had a beginning. We already know that God does not. But God told Moses he would be as God to pharaoh. That is Exodus 4:16. I am not a Hebrew scholar but I try to understand explanations. How do you understand this scripture? How was Moses as God to pharaoh?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes it makes sense, and that is one reason why I wrote about Moses and Pharaoh and God in exodus chapter 4 from the tanach. Moses had a beginning. We already know that God does not. But God told Moses he would be as God to pharaoh. That is Exodus 4:16. I am not a Hebrew scholar but I try to understand explanations. How do you understand this scripture? How was Moses as God to pharaoh?

Actually, to correct this a bit. This is why the Hebrew language is important here.

Hashem, the Creator of all things did not tell Moses he would be a "God" as in how the word means in the western English language. He told Moses, in Hebrew:

ודבר-הוא לך, אל-העם; והיה הוא יהיה-לך לפה, ואתה תהיה-לו לאלהים​

(Translation) He [Aaron] wil speak for you, to the people, and he [Aaron] will be for you for a mouth, and you [Moses] will be to him Elohim.

The word of focus is (אלהים) "Elohim." The word Elohim, on it own, does not denote a type deity, or something of worship. When used concerning "the" source of creation, Hashem, it talking about the aspects of power, strength, judgement, of Hashem. Elohim in general, comes from the Hebrew root (א-ו-ל) or (א-י-ל) which denotes power, strength, being the head of, etc. The term, in the Hebrew Tanakh, is used to denote also humans who do the will of Hashem or who stand as judges according to the Torah. It would be like saying, power(s), or strong people, things, or what humans perceive to be strong/powerful.

For example, Exodus 21:6 uses the term Elohim to describe Judges when a servant decides to stay in the service of his master.

והגישו אדניו, אל-האלהים​

(Translation) And his master will present him/bring him to meet, to the Elohim/Judges.....

So, Pharoah never once thought that Mosese was the Creator of all things. He simply saw Moses as someone who potentially had a certain power/strength which at first Pharoah's servants could imitate but over time it started to become clear that Moses was in charge some powers that came from Hashem. This is why Pharaoh not once regarded Moses as the source of what was happening but instead knew, Hashem was the source it. Some Jewish sources say that initially Pharoah simply thought Moses was able to predict some events based on understanding nature and in a sense forcasting the weather so to speak.

In the video below I explain the root of the word.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Ehav,
Although I took and take your offer of videos that you've posted as well-intentioned, and may take you up on your offer later, I already regret meddling in this thread and am reluctant to prolong the agony.

Thanks for bit of background. Based on what you described I think my earlier comments are still relevant. Essentially, debates/discussion/etc. between Jews and Christians about the New Testament and its content always break down in several areas that seem to be rarely addressed and thus, to me, see be the source of either a) endless debate that goes nowhere or be) both sides never really understand what the other side is even saying/typing.

These unaddressed issues are:

1. What is the history of the new testament texts in question?
2. Who is claimed to be the author of said text and what evidence is there towards that authorship?
3. If the author of said NT text was Jewish, who was their father and grandfather as well as those who they learned from?
4. What evidence is there, based on Torah based Jewish Mesorah requirements, that the NT text in question is acceptable or kosher, so to speak?
5. From a textual standpoint, the Hebrew text of the Tanakh is the original and only source to determing what is reliable and what is not - with regards to statements made about it in other texts.
   • I.e. If the NT makes a statement that contradicts the clear written Hebrew text of the Tanakh, and the understand of it received from Mount Sinai, immediately the validity of the NT and its authors are in question.
   • Since the text of the Torah was penned in Hebrew, from several thousand years ago, translation is unacceptable when making a final point or decision about the meaning of the Torah. I.e. the Hebrew text of the Torah is the starting point and the final stop.

W/o these issues being at the forefront of a discussion, then it ends of that both sides are never able to see the forest from the trees, so to speak, and those discussions often don't end up anywhere.

 

[Harel13]

I think my earlier comments are still relevant. Essentially, debates/discussion/etc. between Jews and Christians

However, Ehav, while I am Jewish and my OP question is about a Christian text, I wasn't asking from a Jewish point of view, or at the very least, I wasn't attempting to ask from a Jewish POV.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

However, Ehav, while I am Jewish and my OP question is about a Christian text, I wasn't asking from a Jewish point of view, or at the very least, I wasn't attempting to ask from a Jewish POV.

I understand but it still begs the question - who were the authors of the NT and what point of view were they claiming to have? Were they Jews? Were they they claiming to have the correct Jewish point of view of their head guy? Or were they claim to be Christians having a divirgent view of the head guy from a non-Jewish point of view?

Most, Christians claim that the NT were inspired by ruach haqodesh in their writings and that their writings were justified by Hashem/Tanakh.

This leads back to the same point. If Hashem gave the Torah and if the Torah was given to the Jewish people and if the NT is claimed by someone to have come from Hashem and is correct in all of its statements then this claim would have to stand or fall based on what is in the possesion of Jews i.e. the Torah and the mesorah from Mount Sinai about it.

 

[Harel13]

I understand but it still begs the question - who were the authors of the NT and what point of view were they claiming to have? Were they Jews? Were they they claiming to have the correct Jewish point of view of their head guy? Or were they claim to be Christians having a divirgent view of the head guy from a non-Jewish point of view?

Most, Christians claim that the NT were inspired by ruach haqodesh in their writings and that their writings were justified by Hashem/Tanakh.

This leads back to the same point. If Hashem gave the Torah and if the Torah was given to the Jewish people and if the NT is claimed by someone to have come from Hashem and is correct in all of its statements then this claim would have to stand or fall based on what is in the possesion of Jews i.e. the Torah and the mesorah from Mount Sinai about it.

I don't think it's relevant to the thread, though.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Based on what you described I think my earlier comments are still relevant

Now, this,IMO, is where things get really interesting, at least to me.
I concede that your post clearly lays down your ground rules for discussion of certain claims. But the claims that you are prepared to discuss are not claims that I am interested in discussing. As a consequence, your ground rules aren't applicable.
You see, I already know--with considerable confidence--that we [you and I] come to the table with irreconcilable differences, ... a lot of them. And I am also confident, based on sufficient personal experience, that no amount of arm-wrestling over texts is going to result in reconciliation of any of those differences. Consequently, I have no interest in discussing them.
There are other matters or claims, however, that Judaism's principal texts makes, which I am curious about and have yet to find a Jew interested and willing enough to discuss.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't think it's relevant to the thread, though.

I think it is, if one is addressing what John meant by the statement:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

and further, what the author of John meant or was even referencing with the statement. Including, the order of events that the author was claiming, the syntex of the author, and even if the author just made it all up with no concern of a source or whether it matches any historical realities.

Just look at Tertullian explaination of the statement:

Now if this one [the Word] is God according to John ("the Word was God"), then you have two: one who speaks that it may be, and another who carries it out. However, how you should accept this as "another" I have explained: as concerning person, not substance, and as distinction, not division.
​

Further, Origen wrote about this:

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God [...] Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. [...] The true God, then, is "The God."
​

If any of these make any sense, or were the intent of the author of John, who is to say but it still goes back to the same point. Where did the author John source this idea originally?

 

[Harel13]

If any of these make any sense, or were the intent of the author of John, who is to say but it still goes back to the same point. Where did the author John source this idea originally

While it's true that the sources you bring discuss seeming fallacies in the opening of John, my question is about a different issue in that same section of John. Hence, what you're attempting to discuss here is a whole different topic.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Now, this,IMO, is where things get really interesting, at least to me.
I concede that your post clearly lays down your ground rules for discussion of certain claims. But the claims that you are prepared to discuss are not claims that I am interested in discussing. As a consequence, your ground rules aren't applicable.
You see, I already know--with considerable confidence--that we [you and I] come to the table with irreconcilable differences, ... a lot of them. And I am also confident, based on sufficient personal experience, that no amount of arm-wrestling over texts is going to result in reconciliation of any of those differences. Consequently, I have no interest in discussing them.

I actually agree with you 100% and that is actually my point. All that ends up happening, with a topic like John 1:1, is exactly where you state it has led you.

There are other matters or claims, however, that Judaism's principal texts makes, which I am curious about and have yet to find a Jew interested and willing enough to discuss.

Ah, and this is where I see the connection in points. The willingness of a Jew to discuss the matters or claims that interest you may depend on:

1. How one defines a "discussion."
2. What are the parameters of a discussion? I.e. question - answer move on to next question or question answer - more questions about answer?
3. Are the questions for the sake of making certain Christian ideas fit within a "Judaic" framework? or instead:
4. Are the questions to understand the "Judaic" sources for certain things and how those sources are historically relevant or realistic?
5. What constitutes and answer to a question? Sources, personal opionion, translation, etc.

For example, personally I don't mind discussing any topic. The main thing I throw out there though is that I beleive in using the best medium for a person to get "the" best answer. So if that is me having to write paragraph after paragraph, while giving loads of references, than that is a way. Yet, if the easier path is to simply discuss it verbally or to create a video where the point can "seen" for what it is then I prefer that path.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

While it's true that the sources you bring discuss seeming fallacies in the opening of John, my question is about a different issue in that same section of John. Hence, what you're attempting to discuss here is a whole different topic.

I noticed earlier that I was missing an "If" in one of my statements that may have given the impression that I was trying to present something directly in the NT as a fallacy. I edited to add the "If" since my point was more or present an open minded approach. My appologies for forgeting the "If"

If you don't mind me asking. I looked at your first post in the thread. What exactly is your question about John? Is it possible that your question is in the translation of John into English?

 

[Harel13]

Is it possible that your question is in the translation of John into English?

Yes. Not knowing ancient Greek, or any sort of Greek, my question is on the word choice of the English. Anyway, I received good explanations already.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes. Not knowing ancient Greek, or any sort of Greek, my question is on the word choice of the English. Anyway, I received good explanations already.

I had assumed that that was your question. I went back through the various responses you got. Interesting stuff.

 

[Terry Sampson]

1. How one defines a "discussion."
2. What are the parameters of a discussion? I.e. question - answer move on to next question or question answer - more questions about answer?
3. Are the questions for the sake of making certain Christian ideas fit within a "Judaic" framework? or instead:
4. Are the questions to understand the "Judaic" sources for certain things and how those sources are historically relevant or realistic?
5. What constitutes an answer to a question? Sources, personal opinion, translation, etc.

re: #1. IMO, a two-person discussion "thread" continues until one or the other loses interest or until an irreconcilable difference puts an end to it, in which case a new discussion thread--if there is one--can replace the abandoned thread.
re: #3. LOL! No. If you ever catch me trying to steal your shoes, feel free to call me on it. On the other hand, Jews and I live in the same universe, at least for now. So, I'd expect to find a couple of things in common.
re: #4. No, not really. More like: questions to discover a Torah-observant Jew's perspective on something, with or without source citations although I like source citations. That said, I'm not interested in a HJ or RJ viewpoint, or a Noachide viewpoint.
re: #5. To name a few:

• Yes
• No
• I don't know, I've never thought about it
  
• Got me, I don't know
  
• I don't understand the question
  
• That doesn't make sense to me
• Avod Zara or the Ramban says
• English and occasional transliterations
• If you want a response to that, you're going to have to Skype me

re: #2. Parameters?
Private conversation thread to keep the RF riff-raff out. (There are a lot of crazy people here, and I haven't gotten around to "Ignoring" all of them, ... yet.)

 

[Rival]

, or a Noachide viewpoint.

I would like to point out here that there is not any such thing as a 'Noachide viewpoint'; I'm not sure where you're getting this or what you mean? Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews and we make the exact same arguments. Noachides and Jews believe the same thing.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I would like to point out here that there is not any such thing as a 'Noachide viewpoint'; I'm not sure where you're getting this or what you mean? Noachides are, by and large, associated with and believe the exact same things as Orthodox Jews and we make the exact same arguments. Noachides and Jews believe the same thing.

You're meddling in an exchange that doesn't concern you. The only reason I posted my response to Ehav in this thread was to answer his questions to me. As soon as he agrees to take our exchange elsewhere, I will.