The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider 79 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hellrider

  Yup, I finally did it. I solved the problem. This is the final and correct interpretation of John 1.1. It came to me after reading a quote by Origen:

  "If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word

  ...so it occured to me: What are words? Words are thoughts, right? Whenever a word is uttered, whether internally or spoken out loud, it is the expression of a thought, in fact, it IS a thought. There can`t be words without thoughts, and think about it: When you think, do you think in words? I certainly do. I guess sometimes my thoughts aren`t that articulate, but there is always a dimension of words in my thoughts! - as it is in every human being. And further: Are my thoughts (or words) seperate from me? When they are spoken out loud, in a sense, they are, so myself and my thoughts are distinct in person (LoL), as if they had been written down on paper...but at the same time, they are not seperable from me (in essence!!!!!) - because my thoughts (words) are me! And what`s more: There IS no ME without my thoughts (words)!! Ok, read John 1.1 now:

  John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning.

  Jesus Christs were the thoughts of God, walking the earth in human shape. Makes sense, doesn`t it! It`s an ok interpretation when reading thru the rest of John too, I think. Yup, it only took almost 2000 years for someone to come up with the correct interpretation (now don`t rain on my parade by saying that someone had allready thought of this...) And it was done by a guy sitting dressed up as a pirate, getting ready to celebrate his sons 3rd birthday. Feel free to elaborate.
• 

  Hellrider

  Eh...no replies...I didn`t mean to sound arrogant, besswerwisser, obnxious in that first post...I was just damn proud of myself......read it with a smile...
• 

  IP_SEC

  You did such a good job, there's nothing left to say.
• 

  gumby

  Jesus Christs were the thoughts of God, walking the earth in human shape. Makes sense, doesn`t it!

  Hellrider ,ya poor bastard! Ya damn near had it right!. .....cept for the fact that the "word" ( which are gods thoughts in human form)...didn't know the day or hour of the end. How could gods own thoughts not know something?..........ya bastard!

  Gumonkeywrenchthrower
• 

  AuldSoul

  hellrider,

  Let me help you along that train of thought a bit:

  Isaiah 55:8-11 “For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than YOUR ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts. For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth and makes it produce and sprout, and seed is actually given to the sower and bread to the eater, so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.

  Knock yourself out. I believe you are on the right track.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Leolaia

  This is actually not that far from the Logos concepts of Philo of Alexandria and the apologists. Note that logos "word" also has the sense of "reason" and "logic" in Greek.

  "The Son of God is the Word of the Father in Ideal Form and Energizing Power; for in his likeness that through him all things came into existence, which presupposes that the Father and Son are one. Now since the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son by a powerful unity of spirit, the Son of God is the Mind [nous] and Reason [logos] of the Father" (Athenagorus of Athens, Legatio 10.2)

  "But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that he is the first offspring [gennema] of the Father. I do not mean that he was created [genomenon],for, since God is eternal Mind, he had the Logos within himself from the beginning, being eternally logical. Rather did the Son come forth from God to give form and actuality to all material things, which essentially have a sort of formless nature and inert quality. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements: 'The Lord,' it says, 'made me the beginning of his ways and works' " (Athenagorus of Athens, Legatio 10.3-4).

  "God, then, having his own Word internal [logon endiathéton], within his own bowels begot him, emitting him along with Wisdom [the Holy Spirit] before all things. He had the Word as a helper in the things that were created by him, and by him he made all things...But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also his Son? Not all the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods from intercourse, but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being he had him as a counselor, being his own Mind [nous] and thought. But when God wished to make all that he determined on, he begot his Word, uttered [prophorikon] the firstborn of all creation, not himself being emptied of the Word, but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with Reason." (Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 2.10, 22)

  "We, too, to that Word, Reason, and Power (by which we said that God devised all things) would ascribe Spirit as its proper nature; and in Spirit, giving utterance, we should find Word; with Spirit, ordering and disposing all things, Reason; and over Spirit, achieving all things, Power. This, we have been taught, proceeds from God, begotten in this proceeding from God, and therefore called 'Son of God' and 'God' because of unity of nature. For God too is spirit. When a ray is projected from the sun, it is a portion of the whole; but the sun will be in the ray, because it is the sun's ray, nor is it a division of nature, but an extension. Spirit from Spirit, God from God -- as light is lit from light. The source of the substance remains whole and undiminished even if you borrow many offshoots of its quality from it. Thus what has proceeded from God, is God and God's Son, and both are one. Thus Spirit from Spirit, God from God" (Tertullian, Apologeticus 21.10-14).

  Thus, in construing Genesis 1, the apologists noted that even before he created anything, God had to have the intention to create within himself and when he created Light he first had to utter the command (= the Word) which made the creation of Light possible.

  Of course, it is too easy to read these concepts back into John, and it is an open question how much the author was indebted to such platonic concepts.
• 

  Hellrider

  Leolaia:

  Note that logos "word" also has the sense of "reason" and "logic" in Greek.

  That`s exactly what I was thinking too, Leo (except that I didn`t know that about Philo of Alexandria). But the greek thought is so evident in John, the JWs (and other groups) are doing a big mistake about not taking the "greek-ness" of the NT, especially John, into consideration (even Hades is mentioned in John, I think). The JWs just live in a fantasy-world that the NT was written by jews, and that there is an "unbroken" line of thought/revelation from the OT to the NT. Their version of christianity is more like "judaism with a twist".

  Thanks Gumby, Auldsouls and IP too.

  Gumby:

  cept for the fact that the "word"( which are gods thoughts in human form)...didn't know the day or hour of the end. How could gods own thoughts not know something?..........

  Well, maybe he hadn`t made up his mind......no, but seriously: Does Jesus ever say that he didn`t know the day or the hour of the end? I can`t remember that. Where did he say that? I though it only was us humans that didn`t know that. Isn`t it possible that Jesus knew, but didn`t reveal it? There were many things Jesus hinted to that he knew, but didn`t say (which is kind of frustrating about the Gospels).
• 

  poppers

  "And what`s more: There IS no ME without my thoughts (words)!!"
  This statement reveals a great truth. There is no "me" without words. So "what" are you when thoughts and words aren't arising?
  
  What you take yourself to be is nothing but a collection of thoughts/words that are clung to. However, there is "something" in which those thoughts and words are appearing in, "something" which is prior to thoughts and words, and which remains after all thoughts and words have faded. When there are no words or thoughts arising there is still consciousness here - each of you knows this, for this consciousness is "knowingness" itself. Consciousness is Self-evident and is always here. Could it be that it is this "ground of consciousness" to which all scripture is trying (quite unsucessfully, it is evident) to point?
• 

  Narkissos

  Hellrider,

  The Gumbmeister is awfully right:

  But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32//)

  Now about logos: this is the kind of word (!) which can be read in completely different ways -- according to the context of course, and also according to the background and mindset of the writer / reader. In the OT thinking (including in the Greek LXX) God's logos is little more than his "Word," of course loaded with considerable power inasmuch as it is the Word of God (as in creation). In a philosophical context logos can become an abstract concept such as "reason," but when a religious philosopher such as Philo makes the concept his own he can easily (or sneakingly) bring it into a new mythological setting, in which case logos is not anymore a purely philosophical concept but becomes a hypostasis, a(n imaginary) person. In the online introduction to Philo at www.earlyjewishwritings.com there is an interesting remark:

  Martin McNamara writes: "Even though he does treat of the literal meaning of the texts in his 'Questions and Answers,' Philo's chief interest is in the allegorical interpretation of the scriptures. The titles of his works show that his thought centered around, or flowed from, the sacred text. However, he can be studied both as a philosopher and exegete. Central to his teaching on God's relationship to the world is his doctrine of the Logos. The term itself occurs repeatedly in his works but is never defined. In Who is Heir of Things Divine?, chapter 42 (§ 206) the Logos says of itself: 'I stand between the Lord and you; I am neither uncreated like God nor created like you, but midway between the two extremes, a hostage on both sides.' It is a matter of debate whether Philo considered the Logos as a reality, as a distinct identity having real existence, or as no more than an abstraction." (Intertestamental Literature, pp. 232-233)

  So I'm not sure that the idea of the logos being "merely" the thought of God fulfilled ("made flesh" in a metaphorical way) in Jesus, attractive as it may be (especially to Unitarians), does justice to the philosophico-religious context of the Johannine Prologue or Hebrews 1:1ff which are indebted to Philo. In John the Son of Man is to return to where he was before, which suggests a personal pre-existence in a mythological setting. In Pauline literature, which does not resort to the "logos" concept, the Son of God is also a pre-existent being.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66342/1.ashx

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/99593/1.ashx
• 

  Narkissos

  There is no "me" without words. So "what" are you when thoughts and words aren't arising?

  I'm afraid the obvious answer lies in the question...