For you ignoramuses who think you are so clever in that you believe you have discovered the Kabbalist tetragrammtron as being Biblical...ask yourself this. What does YHWH mean? Strange that no one seems to know what the bloody term means. Is God a God of confusion. Does God require SECRET knowledge (Gnosticism)?????? You need to be in tune, mystically and metaphysically to summon "god" by his secret, gnostic tetratrammatron name? Is God a freemason? Think long and hard when you ask yourselves these questions.
The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1
by Hellrider 79 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Ianone
-
gumby
Think long and hard when you ask yourselves these questions.
Can't I just think about it short and limp?
Gumflaccid
-
Hellrider
Argh! This was a very interesting thread, at least it started out that way! But then you came along and hijacked it with your conspiracy-theories-crap, Ianone! Please leave my threads alone from now on. There are other forums for conspiracy theories/ conspiracy-and well...anti-jewish-theories.
-
belbab
Allow me to add some thoughts to the above discussion. I have to introduce these thoughts with certain statements. Please consider these statements, not as declarations but as nebulous questions and exploratory points of view.
Jesus said that after his departure a gradual understanding of his words and deeds would take place. He indicated that John would probably be around when he (Jesus) revealed himself again.
The Gospel, Epistles and Apocalypse of John were written decades after the events taking place during the life of Jesus. John was instructed:
"Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. Rev.1:19
Also:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
These two verses, if you can accept it, are keys to understanding the Book of Revelation and the Gospels and Epistles of John, and also include an understanding of the whole Bible and beyond.
John, while being immersed in the Name of the Father, was to reveal The Was, the Is and the Coming. He revealed that the perception of time would be no more or no longer. (Rev.10:6 Webster)
Rev 1:12, 13 says: Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me and I saw….one like a son of man.
John turned and looked behind, not necessarily in space, but in time. This leads him to consider the Was brings us to his introduction to the book of John:
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.
Why did John commence with these words?
He wanted to show the origin, the beginning of a new kosmos that Jesus introduced. He was showing that this new kosmos was not from man, not from nature, but out of heaven (Luke 20.4; Rev 21:2) It was not founded by the armies of men. It was not from a democratic election. Most of the people at that time voted against it and still do today.
A beginning precludes and end. If you can accept the beginning there is light. If you cling and identify with the end of the old, you are enveloped in clouds and darkness.
John, as a Jew, no doubt knew by heart the words:
In the beginning, God (elohim, plural) created the heavens and earth. After a series of words of beginnings and endings the word was declared, "Let us create dust into our image" These ancient words stated in the book of beginnings (Genesis), including the beginnings of consciousness of dust, declare that the earth animate and inanimate originated out of heaven. It did not come into existence by the work of some blind watch maker. It did not come forth riding on the backs of turtles all the way down, nor from a big bang of compressed energy. Nor did it arrive from the thoughts and deeds of men as shown in the text of Isaiah 55: 8-11 cited in a post above. If you can accept this, The Was the Is and the Coming is still creating dust in His image. Even the words of all of us posting in this thread, are figuratively digging, weeding, cultivating, planting, harvesting all the while watered from the well-springs of heaven.
Why does no man know the day or the hour not even the collective or singular Son of man? In a post above, it is suggested that it did not come into the Father’s mind, that he never thought of it. Have you not considered that there are opposing thoughts in His universe?
The Son, does not entertain these opposing thoughts, he ordered them to get behind him. But the Father acknowledges them and has allowed creatures in His universe to have freedom to think as they wish, even to the detriment of other creatures that do not entertain opposing thoughts. If he has allowed his creatures freedom of thought how can the day and the hour be determined when each and every creature will have a change of heart and come to the realization that for eternal well-being God’s thoughts hold supreme.
Belbab, trying. -
belbab
Can anyone tell me how to correct format the above post? I have copied it from Word Pad.Sorry for my ignorance.
Belbab
I still don't know exactly how to do it. What are the two check boxes, Html and automatic. How do I delete something? How do I delete this post. I Quit. (for now)
-
Narkissos
John turned and looked behind, not necessarily in space, but in time.
This reminds me of an amusing detail fwiw: in the Hebrew language and representation, what is past in time is in front of the speaker (the root qdm, for instance, has both meanings; think of the spatial and temporal meanings of the English word "before"). What comes "after" -- the future -- is "behind" ('achar).
If you can accept this, The Was the Is and the Coming is still creating dust in His image. Even the words of all of us posting in this thread, are figuratively digging, weeding, cultivating, planting, harvesting all the while watered from the well-springs of heaven.
That's beautiful and I think agrees with the oldest meaning of "creation", as shown especially in sapiential literature. Whatever is and happens is "the work of (the) God(s)".
If he has allowed his creatures freedom of thought how can the day and the hour be determined when each and every creature will have a change of heart and come to the realization that for eternal well-being God’s thoughts hold supreme.
By the principle you previously expressed, "God" cannot be foreign to any "opposing thought". It is interesting that Paul's development on "God" as "potter" of all vessels concludes this way: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all." (Romans 11:32) -
Hellrider
That's beautiful and I think agrees with the oldest meaning of "creation", as shown especially in sapiential literature. Whatever is and happens is "the work of (the) God(s)".
It`s beautiful, but I can`t swallow that. Hitler, Stalin, Eichman, Mengele, Pol Pot, Mao...and the things they did, was not beatiful.
-
Narkissos
This is admittedly easier to swallow in a polytheistic context.
Yet it was the stance of the first "pure monotheism," cf. Isaiah 45:7:
I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe;
I the LORD do all these things.And it is still essential to Paul who borrows his "potter" metaphor from Deutero-Isaiah:
But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
-
Hellrider
Ok...I really don`t like thinking I`m just a toy in the theatre of a sadistic puppetmaster, though...
Another thing: The use of the word "logos" in John...this is very greek, obviously. But should the idea of a "logos" also make you think about "mythos"? Could this be an intention by the author? God is revealed to mankind thru the logos...and isn`t just a legend, a "mythos" anymore...Could this to be something intended by the author?
-
Leolaia
But isn't there in the rabbinical literature a Memra theology as well? It would seem that Memra (Logos) has some relation to the Hellenistic logos concept in Jewish soil, tho I am not familiar with how it differs from the Philonic Logos (tho I recall it does occur in discussions of the "heretical" Two Powers in Heaven theology).