See John 1:1 with your own eyes: Bible translators have translated Latin, not Greek.

by Wonderment 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  Jn. 1:1 is interpreted based on inspired grammar. I have never heard of the mystic theory that negates any sense of revelation in the context. All the greatest grammarians in the world (masters) agree with Wallace's view. I have even seen an atheistic scholar agree with trinitarians against JWs despite his unbelief in trinity/God.

  Let us parse your comment, shall we?

  You have a fact (interpretation by others) and an assumption (inspired) dependant on each other.

  The hand of God or the mind of God at work through the hand of John(?) is what you assume.

  This is a fact-not-in-evidence, but, in belief.

  Reputable bible scholars admit no author is named and the "book" is probably an overlaying of three separate time periods of redaction by other hands.

  The use of the Greek logos is a strong indicator of content.

  

  Philosophy.
  In pre-Socratic philosophy, the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle, or human reasoning about the cosmos.
  Among the Sophists, the topics of rational argument or the arguments themselves.
  In Stoicism, the active, material, rational principle of the cosmos; nous. Identified with God, it is the source of all activity and generation and is the power of reason residing in the human soul.
  Judaism.
  In biblical Judaism, the word of God, which itself has creative power and is God's medium of communication with the human race.
  In Hellenistic Judaism, a hypostasis associated with divine wisdom.

  Among Gnostic mystics the use of the term Logos was quite different than what mainstream Christianity uses to identify Jesus.

  Gnosticism was the chief competitor to Christianity for a great many years and almost succeeded in swallowing it up.

  The book of John is 90% different and unique compared to the so-called Synoptic Gospels.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  Terry said:

  The book of John is clearly the writing of a mystic.

  Mysticism does not use language the way we use langauge.

  The Mystic uses words the way a painter uses color; that is, to imply, suggest and evoke rather than describe.

  There is no "information" in John 1:1. It is a painting.

  You are so right on the money there Terry, as usual. John is a GNOSTIC gospel....

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Gnostic_elements

  Gnostic elements

  See also: Gnosticism

  Though not commonly understood as Gnostic, John has elements in common with Gnosticism. [8] Christian Gnosticism did not fully develop until the mid-2nd century and 2nd-century Christians concentrated much effort in examining and refuting it. [82] To say John’s Gospel contained elements of Gnosticism is to assume that Gnosticism had developed to a level that required the author to respond to it. [83] Comparisons to Gnosticism are based not in what the author says, but in the language he uses to say it, notably, use of the concepts of Logos and Light. [84] Gnostics read John but interpreted it differently than non-Gnostics. [85] Gnosticism taught that salvation came from gnosis, secret knowledge, and Gnostics did not see Jesus as a savior but a revealer of knowledge. [86] Some scholars [who?] assert that the gospel teaches that salvation can only be achieved through revealed wisdom, specifically belief in (literally belief into) Jesus. [87]

  Raymond Brown contends that "The Johannine picture of a savior who came from an alien world above, who said that neither he nor those who accepted him were of this world, [ 17:14 ] and who promised to return to take them to a heavenly dwelling [ 14:2-3 ] could be fitted into the gnostic world picture (even if God's love for the world in 3:16 could not)." [88] It has been suggested that similarities between John's Gospel and Gnosticism may spring from common roots in Jewish Apocalyptic literature. [89]
• 

  godrulz

  The Johannine use of Logos identifies Him with Christ as God in the flesh (Jn. 1:1-14; Rev.; Phil. 2:5-11).
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  look good from a distance...gets all blurry when you get up close...

  God is a butter face?
• 

  Larsinger58

  LOOK folks. The only real considereation here is whether or not John 1:1 contradicts Jesus' identity as desmontrated in the rest of the Bible.

  And what is Christ's identity? He is God's son and Michael the archangel. Now does John 1:1 contradict that?

  Not if it is translated as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was god." Note, I didn't say "a god."

  So what is John 1:1 saying? He is merely saying that the Father created a son-god. John 1:18 calls Jesus the "only-begotten god in the bosom position of the Father."

  And what does the Bible mean by only-begotten? Well what does it sound like? It sounds like Jesus was the only god begotten by Jehovah. How so? Because we know that the creation of Jesus was unique compared to the creation of all other creatures. That is, the Bible clearly says all things were created by, for and through Christ. This makes Jesus a unique being compared to all the other creatures. So "only-begotten" means that Christ is the only creature that God had to directly create. Jesus was used to create all other things.

  A bad example of this concept is if you imagine God as the creator needing a magic wand to begin creation. Well, first, God has to create the magic wand. The magic wand he created was Jesus Christ. Then after creating this special magic wand directly, he now can just wave that wand and create all kinds of other things. Thus all things are by and through this magic wand.

  But there's no trinity here. John 1:1 doesn't say: "In the beginning was the Word and the Holy Spirt, and the Word and Holy Spirit were with God, and the Word and Holy spirits were gods." So...

  1 Thess 4:15 clearly shows Christ is Michael the Archangel. If you begin there and expand on that, you can't go wrong.

  LS
• 

  godrulz

  only begotten=monogenes...this has nothing to do with being first created (nor does firstborn). He is the unique Son of God, equal with the Father. You are spouting WT nonsense, not biblical truth. He is not Michael, but the Creator of Michael (Col. 1; Heb. 1; Jn. 1). The Holy Spirit is developed in Jn. 14-16, not in Jn. 1:1 (using your logic, there is no Son, because some verses only mention the Father). Jesus is YHWH, not a secondary false god (polytheism if a true god).
• 

  Wonderment

  NomadSoul provided us with a photocopy of Wallace' explanation on John 1:1. Wallace where he states that ‘the evidence is not very compelling to take theós as a definite noun at Jn 1:1c.’ He further writes ‘that to call theós definite as if it had the article would be embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.’ Are you listening godrulz?

  Wallace, as a trinitarian, has a problem though when it comes to explaining the singular anarthrous nouns preceding the verb as a possible indefinite. However, in the same page, he does not hesitate to argue that the translation of John 4:19 is most naturally: "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet," similar to the NWT wording. The grammatical construction of John 4:19 is similar to that of John 1:1c. Now, how do most bible translations render Jn 4:19? Like this: "a prophet." When he comes to with Jn 1:1c, he mentions that "a god" translation is "improbable." Notice he did not say "impossible," as it cost Barclay a lot criticism for saying that, and Barclay had to correct himself on that. Wallace's objection is mainly theological, not grammatical, even if he wants to imply that is a grammatical issue. He mistakingly invokes polytheism, but Jesus proved him wrong when he stated that even man of old could be called "gods." (Jn 10:33-36)

  NomadSoud did not provide us with the next page of the quoted book, where he asks: "Is [Theós] in John 1:1c Qualitative?" His answer is: "The most likely candidate for [theós] is qualitative." Also, Wallace did admit that "It is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times..." Furthermore, in his quest to belittle the NWT he makes use of R. H. Countess flawed analysis of a rule the WT never made. Not only that, in a way he criticized scholars who made use of Colwell's rule concluding that such "rule" says nothing of definiteness. And Countess was one of the scholars who misunderstood Colwell's rule. This shows that no scholar is above reproach, and theology plays as much bearing as it does in the average JW or other church-goer. I like Wallace's Grammar a lot, but at times he goes overboard with his interpretations.

  One poster here keeps saying all over this site, that Jesus being "Son of God" makes him equal to God. If we were to use his reasoning, then it would mean all the "sons of God" (angels) mentioned in Genesis, Job and Psalms would be God's equal. Does that make sense? Of course, Jesus in a way is the Son of God, unlike the others, who are under Christ. But the term itself is no guarantee that the entity is identical with God. By the way, the holy spirit is never mentioned as a "Son of God."
• 

  PSacramento

  Of course we wil be the ones the resolve this issues that have been debted for close to 2000 years, LOL !

  Lets NOT put words into the mouth of the writer(s) of the GOJ.

  The writer states that Christ is Logos, the word of God, he states that Logos was with God and he states that Logos was God.

  Since Logos was with God he can't be THE God, so what does the writer sya here?

  Simply that Logos and God shared the same nature, were the same.

  If the writer had used God, The Fathers, personal Name it would have looked different:

  EX: Lets assume that Jahweh is God's personal Name, as Jaheshua is the Word's personal name -

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, a and the life was the light of all people.

  So we get:

  1 In the beginning was The Word named Jaheshua, and the Word was with God who's Name is Jahweh, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, a and the life was the light of all people.
• 

  Terry

  Simply that Logos and God shared the same nature, were the same.

  Aristotle helped us all out by giving us a way to classify things logically:

  The definition of anything is the statement of its essence i.e. that which makes it what it is: e.g. a triangle is a three-sided rectilineal figure.

  Genus is that part of the essence which is also predicable of other things different from them in kind . A triangle is a rectilineal figure; i.e. in fixing the genus of a thing, we subsume it under a higher universal, of which it is a species.

  Differentia is that part of the essence which distinguishes one species from another . As compared with quadrilaterals, hexagons and so on, all of which are rectilineal figures, a triangle is differentiated as having three sides.

  A property is an attribute which is common to all the members of a class, but is not part of its essence (i.e. need not be given in its definition). The fact that the interior angles of all triangles are equal to two right angles is not part of the definition, but is universally true.

  An accident is an attribute which may or may not belong to a subject. The color of the human hair is an accident, for it belongs in no way to the essence of humanity.

  Now, why don't we apply that to Jesus as a predicable under Jehovah?

  Or, put another way, In the beginning was the Circle and circularity was with the Circle and the Circle was circular.

  Sound silly? It should. In this instance especially. Distinguishing Genus from Differentia tests the reality of such statements not only logically but as to instantiation (instances of existence.)

  If Jesus is the same as Jehovah we have an instance of circularity apart from and separate as to Circles.

  If you are okay with that I'd like to hear about it.
• 

  PSacramento

  While we as humans tend to put everything down in human terms, we should always remember how limiting that is.

  We are slaves the the language and understanding ot the moment we live in.

  So, that in mind, how I view it is thus:

  God is the term we use to describe GOD, and the qualities we ascribe to GOD, it is NOT God's name, no more than HUMAN is our name.

  Christ is GOD because he sahes the same nature as GOD, just as we share the same nature of WHO and WHAT begot Us.

  We are Human since we are begotten from Human, Christ is GOD as He is begotten of GOD.

  Just as we are distinct and different from our Father, Christ is such from his and just as we are the same as our Father, Christ is the same as his.

  Can this make him A god like we are A Human?

  Nope, it doesn't work that way since we tend to be very liberal in how we speak, we are not "a human", we are Human.

  A logical way to look at it from OUR view and language is if God is a Species ( He isn't and can't be qualified as such but for argument sake lets say Yes), then Christ is of the same species, the species Diety.

  But the very nature of THAT species is to be of the same essence as well as the same nature YET to be different persons.