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 Trinity teaching became church doctrine.
You really have me scratching my head in astonishment with the following statement:
Several posts above show what the other views are. We've even listed translations that show views other than the one you have. I don't think it's either fair or honest to say
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.
Herk, the only thing that you and the other objectors have shown so far is, 'The Word is not Christ." 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? The only thing one can gather by replacing Word to it is that it becomes even more meaningless, and so ambigious that one wonders what those translators want to achieve. Nor can you conclude that the Word is the word that comes forth from His mouth; one still has to give account to the Word dwelling amongst us--meaning, the Word living and breathing among men in every literal sense of the word (to pardon the pun).
As for the Trinity, the Council of Nicaea only affirmed what had been taught for centuries over and above Arius' beliefs. First century Christians were already familiar with its concept as shown by Theophilus of Antioch's words when he wrote of "the Trinity of God, His Word and His Wisdom" in A.D. 180. Note how he uses the Word and Wisdom; those familiar will note that the Holy Spirit is associated with Wisdom, so what else does "Word" signify then if not Christ? That such a concept is known to Theophilus would then mean that the concept was already taught before him. Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus wrote in his creed composed in A.D. 260 or 270: "There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever." The form now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," so clearly expresses the Trinitarian dogma that the Arians found it necessary to deny that it had been in use previous to the time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xiii). It is true that up to the period of the Arian controversy another form, "Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," had been more common (cf. I Clement, 58, 59; Justin, "Apol.", I, 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief. (reference: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm for more about the Trinity).
