Posts by herk

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

Lord Zag,

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together.

Precisely. And why not? Why are the Scriptures so vague about something that trinitarians feel is so essential? Why would the Bible say so much about God and leave out something so intrinsically basic if it were true?

It did not take more than 300 years then to define the Trinity; the affirmations were made because there were people who questioned long-standing teachings as handed down by the Apostles and Scripture.

Numerous times the Bible says that God is "one." Jesus himself said, "The foremost [commandment] is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:28, 29) He would not have been commended if he taught that God is three: "The scribe said to him, 'Right, Teacher; you have truly stated that he is one, and there is no one else besides him." (Mark 12:32) Jesus said that the Father is "the only true God," and both Paul and Jude said the Father is "the only wise God." (John 17:3; 1 Tim 1:17; Jude 25) Paul wrote: "There is no other God but one." (1 Cor 8:4) The Bible nowhere states that God is three, yet the so-called "church fathers" felt it was necessary to add that idea to the Bible. And they did it officially some 300 years after Jesus ministry!

So, please explain where you got this idea of the Trinity being a "long-standing teaching as handed down by the Apostles and Scripture." Show just one instance where the Scriptures specifically say that God is three instead of one! I'm not asking for some convoluted explanation. I want to see the facts - the clear, simple statement of what was to become a "long-standing teaching as handed down by the Apostles and Scripture."

It doesn't matter that there were a comparatively few references to this idea less than 300 years after Jesus' ministry. The fact is that the idea is not found in the Bible itself. To find it there, men have to juggle this verse and stretch that one, and there really aren't many for them to work with. Such a revolutionary new concept concerning God should have been stated in remarkably clear terms if it were true. Little wonder that none of the so-called "church fathers" mentioned any hint of it until more than 100 years passed from the time of Jesus' ministry.

Abraham did not believe in a Trinity. Neither did Moses or David or Jeremiah or Daniel. Nor did John the Baptist. Nor did any Jew when Jesus said concerning them, "we know what we worship."

How inconsistent the Scriptures would be if this new teaching was introduced quietly so that only a small number could discern it. That would be especially true of a doctrine so difficult for Jews to accept - so difficult that until today it stands as a major stumblingblock for Jewish acceptance of Catholicism and Protestantism. To Jewish scholars the doctrine is laughable.

How different when the Jews needed to be taught that Gentiles are acceptable in the sight of God! Peter was given a striking vision wherein he was compelled to eat foods considered unclean by the law of Moses. He was told by an angel that it was permissable to enter the home of a Gentile. Paul wrote chapter after chapter in letter after letter explaining the matter. Jesus himself said, "I have other sheep," and he told the Jews that the Kingdom would be taken from them and be given to a nation producing its fruit. There is all kinds of information in the New Testament that shows what a big thing was made of this issue in order to get the Jews to accept it. And many did accept it and became Christians in the process.

Why, then, no similar effort to get the Jews to accept the concept of "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" - a 3-in-1 concept of God that was so foreign to the Jews and to their forefathers and the prophets?

The following is an astonishing puzzle to say the least. You wrote:

Moving on...
Jesus said the Jews knew what God is, and yet they have never viewed God as a Trinity.
How could even Jews view Jesus as such when they rejected Him? I would think that would be clear even to you.

Do you yourself understand what you wrote here? Jesus is the one who said the Jews knew the truth about God. Please read it for yourself at John 4:22. Are you saying that Jesus was a liar? You say the Jews could not know this truth because they had rejected Jesus. So who am I to believe, you or Jesus?

So the question remains: How could Jesus say the Jews knew the truth about God if they did not believe in the Trinity? What the Jews knew in Jesus' day about God was known by their forefathers and all the prophets. None of them believed in a Trinity, and yet Jesus said they knew what God is like. I'm still waiting for you to come up with a rational explanation of this.

It shows us that He had exclusive use to it then, before as Paul, we have become children of God by adoption through Christ Jesus. This struck the Jews as blasphemy, since His claim as being Son of God in an exclusive sense points Him to be co-eternal with the Father.

Again I ask, what does this have to do with "the word" in John 1? You can assert all you want your opinion that Jesus is God, but that still doesn't indicate that "word" doesn't mean "word," which seems to have been your reason for introducing this point.

The early Church Fathers would naturally have closer insight to this, especially the Apostolic Fathers who were taught by the Apostles themselves, such as St. Polycarp who was the student of the Apostle John.

Are you saying Polycarp believed in the Trinity and that he believed the Holy Spirit is God? If you are, please present some evidence for this revolutionary idea that, as far as I know, most scholars would ridicule as totally unfounded.

Again, I see you've completely ignored giving specific answers to my questions. So again I ask myself if this discussion will ever go anywhere. One of us is providing Scripture and the other is providing us with personal opinions and what he feels is support from men who lived hundreds of years after Jesus' ministry. I don't know why you can't see it, but your evidence is as valuable as asking a Chinese Communist the meaning of the American Constitution. He has his own ideas about government and he claims the Constitution supports his ideas. Similarly, so-called "church fathers" lived hundreds of years after the Bible was completed, and they had their own ideas, many of which were based on Greek philosophy. Those are the men you point to for support instead of showing us where your 3-in-1 concept is clearly taught in the Scriptures.

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

Lord Zag,

Perhaps you didn't understand my question. Put another way:

You are the one who said the expression "I am" was of great importance to the Jews. You said it was a title that belonged to God only. You said the reason Jesus spoke of himself as "I am" was to show the Jews that he is God. Yet Jesus did not speak of himself as "I am" in Matthew's Gospel, a record expressly written for Jews. If it was so important that the Jews should know that Jesus was the "I am" of Exodus, why does Matthew nowhere mention the name?

Jesus said the Jews knew what God is, and yet they have never viewed God as a Trinity. Why then does Jesus not clarify matters in Matthew, in a message addressed to Jews? Why would he make an issue of an "I am" Christology in John, but not do so in Matthew?

I do hope my question is clear now, and I would really like to see your answer.

Frankly, I have no idea why you introduced another topic, namely that Jesus addressed God as "my Father" instead of "our Father." I don't believe anyone in this thread has denied that Jesus is God's Son in a very special way. But what does that have to do with explaining who or what "the word" is in John 1? Again, I believe you are resorting to private opinion rather than the Bible's specific teachings regarding who God and Jesus are and what their relationship is with each other. And again, you seem to prefer what the so-called "church fathers" had to say instead of what Jesus had to say about himself. Jesus never spoke of himself as God, as God the Son or as equal with God. Instead of claiming to be God, Jesus commended Peter for saying that Jesus is "the Messiah" and "the Son of God." (Matt 16:16, 17) In fact, Jesus said that God revealed that special knowledge to Peter. By what remarkable special revelation did God reveal more to the "church fathers" than he did to Peter?

You wrote:

The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

If you are right, please explain this:

The Church did not establish that Jesus is a member of the Godhead until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. There was no mention of a "triune God" at that time nor at any time earlier. Nothing is said in the earliest post-biblical times of the Spirit as the third person in the Godhead. No formal Trinitarian definition of the Holy Spirit appears until A.D. 381 at the Council of Constantinople. Only then was it declared that there are "three persons in one God." More than 300 years after the ministry of Jesus, the leaders of the Church were uncertain about the nature of the Holy Spirit. Even then many of them did not think of the Holy Spirit as a person, according to Philip Schaff in History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, page 664.

My question is this: If, as you say "Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step," why did it take more than 300 years for the Church to catch up to the apostles? Why did the apostles eventually know God as a Trinity and not teach that vital information to the rest of the disciples? How did disciples 300 years later, without the presence of the apostles, learn such information on their own? I'm curious as to how you will answer this honestly and truthfully from the Scriptures and the facts of history.

I would also like to see your answer to my question regarding John 4:22. Was Jesus speaking the truth about the Jews, or was he in error? In other words, were the Jews correct in not believing that God is a Trinity, or were they wrong? If they were wrong, why did Jesus speak commendably of their knowledge of God?

I believe my questions are simple enough to be answered straightforwardly from the Scriptures. I see no reason why anyone concerned about truth would need to hedge with their answers and beat around the bush.

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

Lord Zag,

I think it would be more helpful if you blocked off just those sentences or paragraphs that you're responding to.

The arguments you make for the writings of the "church fathers" are similar to those made my Muslims for the Quran and the Mormons for the Book of Mormon. Claiming those writings to be Scripture doesn't make them so.

Ironically, you claim validity for the Trinity due to its acceptance by the Church and on the other hand you claim the writings of the "church fathers" are valid as Scripture even though the Church does not accept them as such. So, I think your viewpoint is inconsistent and lacking in credibility here.

You wrote:

Moving on...read again the article concerning the Logos. John never presupposed that the Word only meant the utterance of God; that would render meaningless the rest of his writing. John's purpose is to identify and indeed affirm the Divinity of Christ, and hence his identification of the Word as Christ.

I'm starting to wonder if you read what I write. I already showed you from John 20:31 that your view of "John's purpose" is not the same as John's own statement. So why do you ignore what John wrote in preference to your own opinion? Again I feel a need to ask: Who are the ones resorting to private opinion, the trinitarians or the non-trinitarians?

You wrote:

I clarified what "it" stands for, as it is already shown that John does not refer only to God's speaking when Word is used; it has become alive, in John's terms, and that this Word has indeed come among us.

How did you 'clarify' this? I showed that it was not the "word" that walked among men. I showed that it was what the word "became." How or where did you show that it was the "word" and not what the "word" became? John said the "word" became "flesh," just as other texts show that the "word" became the sun, moon, stars and earth. It was that person of "flesh" who walked among us, not the "word" that produced him. Do you call the planets and stars by the term "word"? If not, why not? It seems to me you are being inconsistent once again. You do not call the heavens and the earth by the term "word" yet you say Jesus is still a "word."

You wrote:

Now wait a minute: who was the He if John was only referring to God's spoken word?

Again you've ignored what I've written. As many translators show, the word translated as "he" can be translated as "it". So your point becomes mute.

You wrote:

Again, let us reflect on this passage. The Word became flesh, etc. We've discussed this at length. But what about "we saw His glory, etc."?

"Let us reflect." Yes, please do! "The word became" something. It was no longer a "word." It became something else! That something else was a man in the person of Jesus Christ. It was Jesus, not the "word" that produced him, whose "glory" men "saw." We see a word in print, but in Jesus people saw a flesh and blood man.

Your reasoning would insist that the "word" did not become anything, that it remained what it always had been, namely, a "word" that proceeds forth from the mouth of God. But the "word" did change. It did become something else. It became "flesh" as a human being.

Somehow I suspect that all my efforts to "reflect" with you upon this will amount to beating the air. I've said this before about the "word" undergoing a change, but you either don't seem to get it or you refuse to acknowledge it. Yet it is such a simple concept of Scripture.

You wrote:

the flow would be inharmonious.

My question is, According to whose opinion? You have a strong view, but it is not the view of every Bible reader, student or scholar.

You wrote concerning Revelation 19:

Bible scholars agree that this is Jesus.

Somehow you missed it, but I also dealt with that text in one of my earlier posts. Can you understand why I'm starting to feel that this discussion is pointless? Really, do you see any reason why I should continue in this thread if what I write is getting little or no attention and consideration?

When will you acknowledge that Jesus knew better than trinitarians what the Jews always believed about God? When will you admit that John's stated purpose for his Gospel is different from the "thrust" you give it? What reason do you have for continuing to deny that God's "word" results in other things instead of always remaining a "word" in his mouth, even though this is an often stated scriptural concept? What explanation do you have for the capitalization of "word" in chapter one but not in any other chapters of John? How can you insist that it is meaningless, inharmonious, and ambiguous to say that "word" simply means "word" when many scholars wiser than yourself, including Bible translators, see it as perfectly plausible?

I entered this thread to show that there are at least two sides to the story. Your view is that there can only be one side. I have nothing to acknowledge, but I think you do. There are millions of Bible students who disagree with you. To say dogmatically that their position is meaningless is an assertion for which you haven't supplied an iota of evidence. All you've given is your own pontifical opinion.

You wrote:

I AM is very special to the ancient Israelites, or have you forgotten that God spoke to Moses in such a fashion?

Perhaps you are the one who has forgotten. Perhaps you've forgotten that John did not state his purpose was to prove Jesus is the "I am." John did not say that we should believe Jesus is God. He wrote his Gospel that we should "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." (John 20:31)

Perhaps you forgot that "I am" is not what God said to Moses. Jesus did not use the phrase where God revealed his name to Moses. At the burning bush the One God declared his name as "I am who I am" or "I am the self-existent one." (Ex 3:14) The phrase in the Greek Septuagint reads ego eimi ho hown, which is quite different from the "I am" or "I am he" used by Jesus.

Perhaps you've forgotten that you wrote: "I AM is reserved only for God alone." If John was indeed trying to show that Jesus is God, it is quite extraordinary that in the following chapter he quotes a formerly blind man as using the very same Greek expression meaning "I am" regarding himself. (John 9:9) Was the healed man God? If he wasn't, by what authority could he claim a title that you say "is reserved only for God alone"?

Perhaps you've also forgotten that you wrote: "The Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus as a Jew's Jew." If as Jesus said the Jews knew God and "what" he is, Matthew would have been the one to show what you claim John is showing. Jesus said "we know what we worship" at a time when Jews were saying about him that perhaps he is a prophet. They did not view Jesus as God. They had no concept of a triune God. Yet Jesus said plainly that they knew "what" God is. Where does Matthew show that Jesus corrected them? Where does Matthew show that this new concept - if there was one - was brought home to the Jews? Why is it that in Matthew's Gospel Jesus did not put to good use this so-called "name" that you seem to see in John's Gospel? I'll be looking for your explanations.

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

Lord Zagato,

You wrote:

Why did the people in those times did not see Jesus as God when He walked with them? Because they did not recognize Him; indeed, as the Gospel writers acknowledge, their eyes were closed.

Please don't ignore what Jesus himself said. These are his words: "We know what we worship." (John 4:22) The "we" included not only himself, but his contemporaries in the Jewish nation. It is your opinion that their eyes were closed, but Jesus' opinion was not the same as yours. His view was that the Jews did know "what" God is! And having that true knowledge, the Trinity was no part of their conception of God. It hadn't been for millenniums, and it didn't change in the first century A.D.

If "I am" was as special to Jesus as it is to modern-day trinitarians, why is there no reference to it in the other Gospels or, for that matter, anywhere else in the New Testament? Isn't it possible, in searching for every vestige of evidence they can find, that trinitarians are reading things into the Scriptures that aren't really there? It seems that way to me.

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

Lord Zagato,

Should we rely on the so-called "church fathers" or on the Scriptures themselves? Should it really matter what the "church fathers" believed and taught?

Today the American Constitution is more than 200 years old. Short as it is compared to the Bible, men have been wrangling these 2 centuries over how it ought to be interpreted. A variety of opinions have been published in newspapers and court records. Whose interpretations are correct? Whose interpretations will be viewed as correct 2000 years from the time the Constitution was written?

The same sort of questions can be asked about the Bible. Should we view as authoritative those opinions expressed by the "church fathers" during the 200 years after the Bible was written, or should we go to the Bible itself?

You wrote:

I have gone through the posts here, and not one of you has offered any alternative as to what the Word is, who it might refer to other than Christ. You say some render "Word" as "it": "it" what? Is "it" an animal, a plant, an alien?

Surely you're joking. I wonder how it's possible that we are reading from the same thread. And I'm starting to wonder how many times I'm going to need to repeat what I've written.

Do you know the meaning of the term "word"? Is the term "an animal, a plant, an alien"? If it isn't any of those, why is it so important to you that it be defined as such?

A "word" is a "word." It can be either spoken or written, but either way it is simply a "word."

John 1:1 says that the "word" was in the beginning. Genesis 1:1, 6, 7 shows that God spoke his "word" in the beginning when creation took place. When he spoke his "word," that "word" became something. Please note the following texts:

"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host." (Ps 33:6)
"The worlds were prepared by the word of God." (Heb 11:3)
"By the word of God the heavens existed long ago." (2 Pe 3:5)

You wrote:

one still has to give account to the Word dwelling amongst us--meaning, the Word living and breathing among men

You will note that it is not the "word" that lived and breathed among men. What the "word" became or produced did that. Apparently you overlooked what I wrote about Abraham becoming a great nation. The nation was not Abraham and Abraham was not the nation. Abraham became or resulted in the nation. In the same way, the "word" and Jesus are not necessarily one and the same. The "word" was "with God and was God" as the very core, essence and gist of God. But when God spoke that "word," it became something else. It was no longer a "word," just as the heavens and the earth are no longer "words" of God. Just as the "word" spoken by God produced the heavens and the earth, that same "word" produced for Him a Son in the flesh and blood person of Jesus Christ.

That is a biblical concept so simple that no one should naively state that it is "meaningless" or "ambiguous." As stated in Psalm 33:9: "He spoke, and it was done." (Ps 33:9)

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

Bigboi,

If Jesus walked the earth today and performed powerful miracles just as he did in the first century, we would be amazed. Would it be because we thought he was God? Or, would it be just as it was with those who saw him in the first century?

Matthew 9:8 says, "But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men."

Those people did not view Jesus as God. Instead, they saw Jesus as a man who had been given authority by God to accomplish certain things.

On another occasion, "the crowd marveled as they saw the mute speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel." If Jesus was "the God of Israel," the crowd would have glorified him. Instead, they glorified God in heaven who gave Jesus the ability to perform miracles.

The apostles had the same authority and ability that Jesus had. In fact, Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father." (John 14:12)

Doing works greater than those Jesus did does not make the doer of those works equal to God. When the apostles performed great miracles, the people responded in the same way as when Jesus performed them. Acts 4:21 says "they were all glorifying God for what had happened." They did not glorify the apostles as God just as they did not glorify Jesus as God.

Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote at Galatians 1:24 that "they were glorifying God because of me." Like Jesus, Paul had received his authority and ability from God, but that did not mean that Paul was equal to God in any way.

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

Lord Zagato,

The question is, Who are the ones engaging in private interpretation of what John meant? Jesus said that the Jews and he "know what we worship." (John 4:22) The Jews did not worship a Trinity, and yet Jesus said they knew God. Those who force their own private interpretation are those who come along with a different view, even if they profess to belong to a so-called "historic Christianity."

A genuinely historic Christianity reaches back to the first century, not merely the third century when the teaching that Jesus is God became church doctrine.

You really have me scratching my head in astonishment with the following statement:

If it is not Christ, I am interested to know what the views of those who object to it are. So far all I have seen from objectors here is, "It is not Christ." I have not seen any other reason or identity being put forward as to who or what the Word is.

Several posts above show what the other views are. We've even listed translations that show views other than the one you have. One view is clearly presented in the very paragraphs you blocked off and quoted from my previous post. So, I don't think it's either fair or honest to say

So far all I have seen from objectors here is, "It is not Christ."

I think it has been clearly shown that the "word" can simply be God's own "word" that comes forth from his mouth. That word came forth from him in the beginning, and it produced the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1, 6, 7) Very likely John was referring back to that very same "beginning" when God began his work of creation. The "word" spoken then was God's. That "word" was "with" God in the sense of being in his possession within his mind.

Private interpretation can originate in a single person or in a church, just as the Trinity doctrine began to be formulated by the Catholic Church long after the time when Jesus attributed to the Jews a correct knowledge of who and "what" God is. (John 4:22)

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

Lord Zagato,

You wrote:

There is no doubt that the Word spoken of by John is Christ.

There are many persons who for good reasons do have doubts. And so, it would be more accurate for a person to say "There is no doubt in my personal view."

It is merely an assumption to say "This was the whole thrust of John in his Gospel." John himself says his "thrust" was "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)

From William Tyndale on down to translators of today, others have had a view different from yours. Note that several translators do not personify "the word." It is not a "him." "The word" is an "it":

"All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made." (William Tindale Translation, 1530)
"All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made." (The Geneva Bible, 1560)
"Through it every thing was done; and without it not even one thing was done, which has been done." (The Emphatic Diaglott, 1865)
"Apart from it came not anything into being that came into being." (The People's New Covenant, 1925)
"All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." (Concordant Literal New Testament, 1926)
"By it everything had being. And without it nothing had being." (The Original New Testament, 1985)
"All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing." (William Tindale Newe Testament, 1989)
"All things happened through it, and not one thing that has happened, happened without it." (The Unvarnished New Testament, 1991)
"It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency." (Scholars Version, 1993)

The problem I have with your statement is that it is more dogmatic than you have a right to be. It is possible to understand "the word" as being just that, the "word" spoken by God Himself, the same "word" that brought into existence all other things, as shown by the verses I quoted above in an earlier post.

It is also possible to view differently than you do the phrase "the word became flesh." For example, when God promised Abraham that he would "surely become a great and mighty nation," he did not mean that the future nation would literally be Abraham. (Gen 18:18) He meant that Abraham would produce that nation. Similarly, the man Jesus Christ can be viewed as the product of God's "word." That "word" produced the heavens and the earth. It can also produce a human being.

I realize that this is a concept not popular in today's world. We've all heard another interpretation, either from trinitarians or from JWs. But when we put aside their concepts and read the Bible from the standpoint of the time when it was written, we can arrive at another understanding that may be more in keeping with the writer's intention.

Mary asked above in one of her posts:

How can God go from being "One" in the Old Testament, to being three in the New Testament? The Israelites/Jews never believed in a Trinity; they believed in one God, Yahweh.

That is an appropriate question, in view of what Jesus said concerning himself and other Jews of his time on earth: "We worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

Inkie,

Since leaving JWs, I've also become aware that there are many translations that are similar to the NWT. Thanks for posting that interesting list. As you are probably aware, a similar list could be drawn up for Bible translations in languages other than English.

It seems you and I and some others here are in agreement that neither side of the Trinitarian/JW controversy can use John 1:1 to build a strong case for their doctrine. The fact that scholarly translators have chosen to render the verse in basically two ways shows that it doesn't conclusively prove the Trinity and it doesn't conclusively prove that Jesus is "a god."

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets stretched into many pages. As weak as their case is, some see John 1:1 as the principal support for what they believe about God and Christ. There are others who will add their 2 cents worth by mocking both sides. I think it's a shame in this 21st century that so many still lose their cool when discussing this simple verse. One of my great disappointments is that I've allowed myself to become swept into such heated discussions. I also think it's a shame that your list will probably be ignored by most of the participants here.

Herk

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

herk

If ordinary readers had never heard of the Trinity or of JWs, I really doubt they would see a hint of Jesus Christ in John 1:1. If they were familiar with the Bible, they probably would feel that it's simply a confirmation of verses like the following:

"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host." (Ps 33:6)
"For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Ps 33:9)
"Praise the LORD ... from the heavens; ... in the heights! ... all His angels; ... all His hosts! ... sun and moon; ... all stars of light! ... highest heavens, ... waters that are above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created." (Ps 148:1-5)
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ... Then God said, 'Let there be ...' God made ... and it was so." (Gen 1:1, 6, 7)
"The worlds were prepared by the word of God." (Heb 11:3)
"By the word of God the heavens existed long ago." (2 Pe 3:5)

Trinitarians and JWs will argue about this, but the fact remains that John 1:1 does not say, "In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was with God and Christ was God [or, a god]."

The Greek word logos occurs 36 times in John's Gospel, and it's capitalized by English translators only in chapter 1. And yet, the term "word" in John 1 was not capitalized in any language until the time of the King James Version which was translated by trinitarians. (The original Douay rendering is difficult to determine since the one currently in circulation is the revised edition of 1899.) Jesus doesn't enter the picture until verse 14 which was rendered in the following way before the KJV: "And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us."

As shown by the above texts, God brings things into existence by his "word." Just as God's "word" became angels, stars, sun, moon, etc., it also became a flesh and blood human being in the person of Jesus. And just as the Bible, due to its teachings, has become known as "the Word of God," Jesus for the same reason became known as such. (Rev 19:13) What we find in the Bible was in the mind of God long before the Bible came into existence. And the man who became known as Jesus Christ was similarly in the mind of God from the very beginning.