OK then, weasel. Here's your opportunity to come clean on the question. Answer this question:
Was Wisdom (talked about in Proverbs 8) God? Yes or No?
Until you answer "Yes" to this question, you will have, indeed, been denying that WISDOM WAS GOD.
What you wrote, here, is mumbo-jumbo, since your use of your pet word, "personification", is meaningless.
John 1:1 is a Bible verse. It's this one: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So, naturally, I have no clue what (if anything) you mean when you say "John 1:1 is The Word, not Jesus". You deliberately practice to obfuscate.
Really concentrate, and just consider how asininely stupid what you wrote looks and sounds. You are saying "John 1:1 is...not Jesus."
Who said that the Bible verse, John 1:1,
is Jesus? I certainly didn't. I
have said, and will continue to say, the truth: viz., that
the Word (written about
in the Bible verse, John 1:1) IS Jesus. But I have
never said that the Bible verse, John 1:1, itself, IS Jesus.
What I wrote, just now, regarding your clowning regarding the Bible verse, John 1:1, applies just the same (with the details changed appropriately) to your clowing, here, regarding the Bible verse, Proverbs 8. I never said that the Bible verse, Proverbs 8, IS Jesus. Who
did? So, to what (if any) purpose are you saying "Proverbs 8 is...not Jesus", as though you imagine someone had first said, "Proverbs 8 IS Jesus", and that they needed a retort from you?
Quit your clowning.
How is it abusive to call someone a
fool who acts like a fool, or to call someone a
weasel who acts like a weasel?
Look, weasel:
Which question that I asked you is your "Yes", here, supposed to be in response to? Your playing all nebulous and fuzzy and Jell-O-like is morally disgusting. It's what makes you the weasel that you are. Indicate, by
quotation of my own words, exactly
which question it is that I asked you, to which you imagine your "Yes Jesus was The Son of God when conceived...." is an
answer. I NEVER asked you, "Was Jesus The Son of God when conceived and born?"
Learn how to write, in English, weasel. Don't write crap like what you wrote:
"Yes Jesus was The Son of God when conceived and born Luke 1:34-35."
Rather, write correctly. Use punctuation where it is necessary, as follows:
"Yes. Jesus was The Son of God when conceived and born (Luke 1:34-35)."
I've not the slightest inclination to chalk up your systematic, wanton disregard for trying to make your thoughts verbally precise and clear,
to mere stupidity, or
to juvenile delinquency. You're a hardened, Christ-hating heretic, and I definitely
do not put it past you to employ any artifice you might fancy in your attempt to justify yourself in your readers' eyes. It's always stupid to war against truth, as you do. But I do NOT fall for the idea that you are stupid in the sense that
craftiness is out of reach to you as an element of your M.O. Rather, over some time, I've observed, in detail, many of your ridiculous posts enough to be well aware that you, Lo and behold!, seem almost miraculously unable to ever get clearer, or more precise, in your use of the English language. Your consistently crappy handling of English--IN THE ARENA OF A WRITTEN DEBATE FORUM, no less--I take to be a subterfuge on your part, frankly.
Somewhere, I saw you claim that you are a
draftsman. If you apply the same abysmally low, crappy standards of precision to draftsmanship as you do TO YOUR REAL INTEREST (viz., promulgating your Christ-hating doctrines via written text in forums), I'd be amazed if you've ever gotten paid to draft!
As an anti-Christ, you, here, blaspheme Jesus, once again, by saying that He started out
less morally good than He ended up, later.
Brilliant observation!
You take
that from John 1:14
too? Oh, man, and here I thought I was probably the only one who had ever gleaned that from the text!
Please try to explain how (if at all) you imagine it is better to say "moral glory", as YOU say, than it is to say "glory", as John said, in his Gospel.
You're a masterful Bible expositor, no doubt! I just don't see how I could ever have learned that Jesus was full of grace and truth simply by reading the text of John 1:14, without the aid of your illuminating gloss on it!
Since all you mean when you say "Jesus was the only begotten of the Father" is that the Father CREATED Jesus, just as the Father created every other man and woman, you've got zero cause to claim that the one
creature you blasphemously call "Jesus" has any more glory
on account of being created than does any other creature.
You've zero cause to say that the one creature, Adam, had any less glory than any other creature.
Spare me.
John 1:1
I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word” (
Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?
It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (
notice Him and He are now “It”).
Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde
was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by
it and
with out
it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In
it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the
worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by
it and
without
it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men
Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was
God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by
it: and
without
it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In
it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word
was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by
it, and
without
it was made nothing that was made. 4 In
it was life, and that life was the light of men.
And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the
word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through
it, and
apart from
it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In
it was life, and the life was the light of men."
The word
logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it !
The rest of the New Testament is the same.
Logos is variously translated as "statement" (Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to.
In all cases logos is an “it.”
In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the
beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought
all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.
"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled.
Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.
There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already
misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the
world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a
“who” he put it this way: "
What was from the beginning,
what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes,
what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"
Logos - This word is translated in English as
"Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.
who testified to the word of God
and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)
"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus
and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)
Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus
AND for the logos of God.
Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.
John 12:48
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (
God)
who judges him; the word(
logos)
I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos! So who is the Logos? The very next verse tell us!
Joh 12:49
"For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
Jesus is not our Judge, but our savior!
Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the
world might be saved through Him.
Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to
men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He( God) has fixed a day in
which He will judge the world in righteousness
through a Man whom He has
appointed,having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom
of God message.
So what does "logos" mean?
Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an
external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New
American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).
According to
Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:
Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.
I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"
"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."
The very Trinitarian Roman
Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:
"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."
Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).
So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a
logos, a plan. Your plan (
logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries,
logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "
logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:
"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."
With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.
John 12:48
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word ( I]logos[/I]) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!
1Jn 1:1
What was from the beginning,
what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes,
what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--
What does scripture teach you about... What was from the beginning?
Pay attention as we need to get a little deeper comparing both John 1:1 with 1 John 1:1
John 1:1 -
"In the beginning was the Word." 1 John 1:1 –
"What was from the beginning, what we have heard."
Notice that in John what is from the beginning is the word, and in 1 John what is from the beginning is something that they heard (a message) .
Look closely...
1 John 2:7 - "Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard."
In 1 John 1:1 what was from the beginning
is something that they heard, here in 1 John 2:7 the old commandment is what they have had
from the beginning, (sound familiar?) and the old commandment is the "WORD" that they what? Heard! The same as in 1 John 1:1.
So, What commandment is John speaking about?
John is speaking about what Jesus called the greatest commandment, ( Mark 12:29-30 ) the commandment of love which God gave the Hebrews from the beginning. The message of love that the proclamation of the Kingdom of God brings with it.
How do we know for sure that this is the message and/or the commandment that they heard from the beginning? Because John tells you so in 1 John 3:11 and 1 John 3:23:
"For this is the message you have HEARD from the BEGINNING: we should love one another."
"And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another."
Loving one another is how the world will know that we are followers of God’s Christ.
John 13:30 – "This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
According to Paul (Romans 13:9), the law of love is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and it is the Law in the coming Kingdom of God which the Messiah has come to proclaim. These are Jesus’ own words.
John is talking about the message or
Logos (known by you as “word”!)
By making John 1 a Trinity support verse, you lose so much truth!
oly::sherlock:
Paul
