In en the beginning arch? was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos , and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos .He houtos was eimi in en the beginning arch? with pros · ho God theos.All pas things were created ginomai by dia him autos, and kai apart ch?ris from him autos not oude a single thing heis was created ginomai that hos has been created ginomai .In en him autos was eimi life z??, and kai that ho life z?? was eimi the ho light ph?s of ho men anthr?pos .· kai The ho light ph?s shines on phain? in en the ho darkness skotia, and kai the ho darkness skotia has katalamban? not ou understood katalamban? it autos .There came ginomai on the scene a man anthr?pos sent apostell? from para God theos, whose autos name onoma was John I?ann?s .He houtos came erchomai as eis a witness martyria to hina bear testimony martyre? about peri the ho light ph?s so that hina everyone pas might believe pisteu? through dia him autos.He ekeinos was eimi not ou the ho light ph?s, but alla came to hina bear testimony martyre? about peri the ho light ph?s .The ho true al?thinos light ph?s, · ho which hos enlightens ph?tiz? everyone pas anthr?pos , was eimi coming erchomai into eis the ho world kosmos .He was eimi in en the ho world kosmos, and kai the ho world kosmos was created ginomai by dia him autos , but kai the ho world kosmos did gin?sk? not ou know gin?sk? him autos .He came erchomai to eis that ho which was his idios own, but kai his ho own idios people did paralamban? not ou accept paralamban? him autos .But de as many hosos as did accept lamban? him autos, to them autos he gave did?mi the right exousia to become ginomai children teknon of God theos , to those ho who believe pisteu? in eis · ho his autos name onoma ,who hos were born genna?, not ou from ek human haima stock or oude from ek a physical sarx impulse thel?ma or oude by ek a husband’ s an?r decision thel?ma , but alla by ek God theos .And kai the ho Word logos became ginomai flesh sarx and kai dwelt sk?no? among en us h?meis, and kai we gazed theaomai on · ho his autos glory doxa , glory doxa as h?s of the only monogen?s Son from para the Father pat?r , full pl?r?s of grace charis and kai truth al?theia .John I?ann?s testified martyre? about peri him autos and kai cried kraz? out, saying leg? , “ This houtos is eimi he of whom hos I said leg? , ‘ He ho who comes erchomai after opis? me eg? is ginomai greater emprosthen than I eg? , because hoti he existed eimi before pr?tos me eg? .’” - John 1:1-15
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:1-15&version=MOUNCE
does not prove Jesus is YHWH. It would be a rather weak 'proof-text', since all it indicates is that the 'logos' (idea, thought, logic, wisdom, word) of 'God' is divine like 'God',...since the 'logos' is derived from 'God', one with 'God'. It is very clear that "in the beginning" this 'creative word',...the spoken word of God is what brought all things into being, for that creative principle is God's creative VOICE, it is that THRU which God creates, brings things into existence. The 'logos' is divine, because it is God's VOICE, logic, creative word, divine wisdom expressing, that designing intelligence which orders/orchestrates creation, his MIND-program, purpose, plan, articulator.
John 1:1 alone does not prove Jesus is YHWH, true.
Which is why it's important to not look at singular verses alone for proof text. You have to read the surrounding verses for context, hence why above I have provided the Greek/English interlinear translation of John 1.
In John 1:1 We see that the Logos was in the beginning, and that the Logos was with God, and was God.
In John 1:2 We see that He (so we know that the Logos is a person) was in the beginning with God.
In John 1:3 We see that the Logos made all things, and apart from Him, nothing was made (or created) that was made.
In John 1:4 We see that in Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
In John 1:5 We see that the light (of men) shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not understand it.
In John 1:6-9 We see that John the Baptist was sent by God as a witness to bear testimony of the light, so that everyone might believe through him, and that John is not the light, only that he bears testimony that the light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
In John 1:10 We see that the Logos was in the world, and that the world was made by Him, but the world did not know Him.
In John 1:11 We see that the Logos came to His own (Israel, God's people), but they didn't receive Him.
In John 1:12-13 We see that those who did accept Him and believe in His name He gave the right to become children of God, who were born by God, and not of human stock or physical impulse or by a husband's decision.
In John 1:14 We see that the Logos became a man (flesh) and dwelt among us (mankind), and we gazed on the glory of the Logos, the glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
And in John 1:15 We see that John testified of the Logos, who comes after John, but is greater than him, because the Logos existed before John.
I could go on through the rest of the chapter, but that would take more time than I have currently, and I think those first 15 verses make it abundantly clear that Jesus, in fact, IS the Logos.
Now, who else could John the Baptist be talking about, BUT JESUS? No one.
That the logos is 'a' god, or 'divine', or 'a' God (of God) is what the verse indicates, NOT that the logos itself is The Father-God, since 'God' and the 'logos' are clearly distinct and different entities.
There's a rule called the Granville-Sharp rule, which states thusly:
"Two nouns connected by kai* (και), the first with the article and the second without it, are by the article identified as one and the same individual or class."
For example, when I say, "the father and the husband," it implies that I'm talking of two separate persons. However, if I say, "the father and husband," it's a very clear indication that I'm talking about the same person, but two titles were attributed to him.
Please, go read this (if any of it, read 4A):
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/egreek/egreek05.htm
The 'logos' is WITH 'God', NOT 'God', but only 'theos' as being 'of' theos, being the offspring of Theos.
The Logos is with God and is God, as John 1:1 clearly states.
The 'logos' is God's agent/agency,....and not God himself,...which would be an absurd and illogical contradiction.
The only absurd and illogical contradiction is you saying that the Logos is not God Himself.
---
Among 207 Bible translations.....42 render a different translation than the traditional "and the word was God"....showing there are other possible and logical ways to contextually translate this passage. Context is key as well.
Which you apparently ignored throughout the first half of your post. If context was important to you, then you would have known right away that the Logos is Jesus is God.
See
here.
Some acceptable translation variations -
"The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine."
-James Moffat Translation
Divine implies that the Logos is God, because only God is divine. Ergo, the Logos is God.
"When time began the Idea already was. The Idea was at home with God, and the Idea and God were one."
- Cotton Patch Version (Jordan)
While "logos" can mean idea, it is clear that in this passage it is referring to the Word of God, who is a person, and that that person is Jesus Christ.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
- New Testament being the English Only (Kneeland 1823)
Again, using the Granville-Sharp rule, we know that "the Word was a god" is an incorrect translation of the phrase.
"In the beginning was the plan of Yahweh, and the plan was with Yahweh, and the plan was Yahweh’s."
- The Book of Yahweh: The Holy Scriptures (Hawkins 1987)
"the plan was Yahweh s"
Is that "s" supposed to indicate possession? Or just a typo?
The original greek does not indicate anywhere or in any way that the Word "belonged" to God, it states that the Word was (and is, because Jesus still exists) God.
"In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God's presence, and what God was, the Word was."
- Revised English Bible
"and what God was, the Word was"
This translation fails to convey the same meaning as the original text, which is that the Logos was God.
---------------------------
Philo's view of 'God' and the 'logos' are also significant here as contemporaneous philosophical belief systems and influences near Jesus time.
Why would you use Greek philosophy to interpret the Bible? The Greeks were polytheistic pagans.
While one's Christology may include the logos being Jesus, or the 'logos' as being an impersonal power, principle or subordinate entity,....of course Jesus is the Messiah-Son, who serves as the Agent-Word of the Father, so the Lord-Messiah is the vehicle of the divine-logos, in its plans, purpose and program orchestrating man's salvation/liberation.
Jesus is the Logos is God. That's how simple it is.
There are other ways to understand and incorporate the 'logos' in one's Christology, besides a traditional-orthodox Trinitarian model.
Thats only if you don't consider the context of what is being said, which you clearly do not.
In this way, I've a predisposition for a more greek philosophical orientation, with some gnostic-pagan infusions from the Alexandrian school, and other archetypal traditions.
No wonder you're having so many problems. Do you think, Freelight, that if God wrote a book, He would make easy to understand the message contained therein? That we wouldn't need philosophers to try to understand it? Certainly He would hide things, because He likes it when we dig into His Word, to find out more about Him. But they wouldn't be hard to understand once we found them...
So again, why would it be necessary to use, of all things, a paganistic view of the Bible to interpret it? It goes against the very essence of the Bible.
"In the beginning was the wisdom, logic, Idea of Deity,....this was with God, and so by relation was divine like God" - a paraphrase
Why paraphrase, especially if the result is something that doesn't match scripture? It's so simple that there's no need to paraphrase.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
