whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Biblical Contradictions => Topic started by: The Gawd on January 06, 2013, 05:45:44 AM

Title: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: The Gawd on January 06, 2013, 05:45:44 AM
John 1:1

Quote
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
 

This verse is commonly interpreted as "The Word" meaning or being Jesus.

I present to you why it CANNOT be so even within the context of the Bible...

In the Hebrew bible, Genesis 1:1 it is Elohim that creates the "heavens and the earth"
as the SAME STORY continues...

Genesis 1:26

Quote
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

I'm pretty sure we all know about Elohim and the pantheon of gods at this point... It is clear to anyone not practicing mental gymnastics that the "Us" and "Our" in this case are the gods in that pantheon. It is important to note that during the creation story and before "sin" the "Our" and creation story refers to the elohim, not the trinity.

Now, in popular Christian theology, Jesus is said to have come to redeem mankind of its sinful nature. Thus at the time of creation and even right up until the point of initial sin there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred. There also would be no "Word" meaning bible or books of the bible either, as it had not been written, nor are there poeple to write and read it.

So, I ask. What is this "Word that was with god?"
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Nick on January 06, 2013, 08:07:08 AM
Simple man.  God was showing His street cred...WORD!!!
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: The Gawd on January 06, 2013, 10:33:48 AM
You know, that didnt even cross my mind...

Old Jehova was actually a New York hip hop head, and none of this had to do with Yeshua... Hov simply said, "Word, son" and out of that we get a story about a book, sin, prophets, and a petty criminal on a cross... good lawd
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Dominic on January 06, 2013, 12:13:50 PM

Excellent question Gawd

How about this.  Just a little something that I threw together : - )

'The Word' is equated with the 'Logos' of Greek philosophy.  Another usage of the term 'Logos' is language or discourse.

'The Word' can be understood to be either language or the principle behind language.  Language allows us to differentiate between things.  If we couldn't differentiate then there would just be one big nameless whole.  But after language we have 'things' because we give aspects of our experience (consciousness) names.  We even name ourselves 'I' and this 'I' somehow seems to separate us from the rest of reality.  So our very selves depend on a name.

1. So through language (esp naming) all things were made!  A universe of things (matter) was constituted.


Language also differentiates humans from animals.  Each of us takes on the name 'I' at some early stage of our lives.  And both OT and NT suggest that 'I AM' is the name of God.

2. So in this way we are made in his image.


So the first name, the first word, what could it be ?  I suppose it would have to be the name of God wouldn't it !?

3. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jesus is alleged to have said 'before Abraham was I am' - and they took up stones to throw at him because he was taking on God's name.

The significance of God's name -

Every statement can be doubted except one.  The entire universe and even my body may be a dream, an illusion, a trick.  But I cannot doubt the dreamer.  If I doubt my own consciousness then this act requires an 'I' (consciousness) in order to do so.  Thus doubting the statement proves it true!.  Is there any other statement that is proved true by doubting it ?  Is it coincidence that the only statement that we can be certain of is 'I am' ?

This analysis can go on to explain how humans separate from God by taking on a self (a personal 'I') which can be equated to 'original sin' passed on from generation to generation without thinking.  I take God's name but I assign it to a separate individual self.  I attempt to separate myself from the rest of reality.  Now, the world is a threat to me.  It can harm me.  Others are now my competitors.

The self is associated with selfishness while one of the core elements of religions is to promote selflessness, unity, self denial.  So what happens if we become fully selfless ?  The individual dissolves and the whole is restored.  Unity with God - the one true self - the whole - the source of all consciousness and also the nsmr of consciousness as well - 'I AM'.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Dominic on January 07, 2013, 04:09:22 PM
(comtinued)

Just to add a bit that I missed -

4. 'The word became flesh and dwelt amongst us'

The simplest interpretation is 'I AM' (God's name) came into the physical world as Jesus.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: kcrady on January 07, 2013, 08:41:01 PM
Well, one thing this passage tells us is that "the Word of God" is not some book scribed by human hands or any mutterings of humans in fancy costumes.  Rather (if you believe the passage) it is Jesus himself,[1] the "harmonizing proportion"[2] that unites the heavenly and earthly realms of Platonic/Pythagorean metaphysics.

At any rate, the Prologue of John's Gospel would arguably represent the Ur-Bible Contradiction, as it contradicts the very idea of "The Bible" as revered by modern Protestant fundamentalists.
 1. Or perhaps a spiritual principle or divine intermediary or aspect of the divine that at some point embodied itself in, or as, Jesus.  Early Christians had a wide range of beliefs about who and what Jesus was, ranging from a Jewish messiah concept of an ordinary man specially empowered by Yahweh, through the various flavors of Gnosticism, many of which rejected the idea that Jesus was ever a flesh-and-blood human.
 2. "Logos" had this meaning as well--we get our words for "logic" and 'logarithm' from it.  Its Latin equivalent is the root for "ratio" (mathematical harmonizing proportion) and "rationality."  See David Fideler's Jesus Christ: Sun of God for an extensive and thorough discussion of the Logos concept in Greco-Roman philosophy and how the Christians took over the mathematical and sacred geometric "canon" created by Pythagoras and his successors.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Graybeard on January 08, 2013, 05:43:38 AM
Excellent question Gawd
How about this.  Just a little something that I threw together : - )
And it shows – please take more care in future.

Quote
'The Word' is equated with the 'Logos' of Greek philosophy.  Another usage of the term 'Logos' is language or discourse.

'The Word' can be understood to be either language or the principle behind language.
Thus as the meaning is uncertain, anything you conclude will be equally uncertain and unreliable if wrong.

Quote
Language allows us to differentiate between things.  If we couldn't differentiate then there would just be one big nameless whole.
No – there would be a lot of separate things without names. Imagine you see two small but different insects, merely because you personally do not know their names, it does not mean they are the same.

Quote
But after language we have 'things' because we give aspects of our experience (consciousness) names.
No, this can’t be so. ‘Things’ must come before names.

Your mistake reminds me of this:

Adam is given the job of naming all the animals. One day, God asks him, "Why did you call that one a Hippopotamus?"

and Adam replied, "Because it looks like one."

Quote
We even name ourselves 'I' and this 'I' somehow seems to separate us from the rest of reality.  So our very selves depend on a name.
Can I suggest an elementary grammar book, where you will find that “I” is a pronoun – i.e. something that stands in place of a noun or name.

A personal name is what we English speakers call, "a proper noun".

Quote
1. So through language (esp naming) all things were made!
This is a complete non-sequitur. Think about it a moment. First we see things and then we describe them by one or more words.

Quote
A universe of things (matter) was constituted.

Any connection between your reality and that of the rest of human kind is purely coincidental.

Quote
Language also differentiates humans from animals.
This is misinformation, pure and simple. I don’t know how else to put it. There is ample evidence for language in lower orders – you seem to be able to speak.

Quote
Each of us takes on the name 'I' at some early stage of our lives.

You didn’t read what I said about nouns and pronouns, did you?

Quote
And both OT and NT suggest that 'I AM' is the name of God.

Yes, ancient Hebrews were well known for speaking English. That aside, do you think it is possible that some person gave him that name? You know, just invented it as a “stage name” – something like “Sledge Riprock” or “Max Headroom”?  He's also know by a few dozen other names.

Quote
2. So in this way we are made in his image.
So… He makes us -> he tells us his name -> his name is “I am” -> the personal pronoun is “I” so …
THERE  MUST BE A GOD!!!!111!!!

And what on earth do you mean by "In His Image"?

Quote
So the first name, the first word, what could it be ?  I suppose it would have to be the name of God wouldn't it !?
No, it was probably the pre-palaeolithic equivalent of “Ow!” when you dropped a rock on your foot.

Quote
Jesus is alleged to have said 'before Abraham was I am'

Jesus is ‘alleged’ to have said many things – I think you are looking for:
John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”


Dominic,
If you want to progress the cause of mankind; if you want to help people; if you want to make the world a better place – please try thinking critically about what you are writing.

Thank you.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Sarevok on January 09, 2013, 11:49:14 PM
Now, in popular Christian theology, Jesus is said to have come to redeem mankind of its sinful nature. Thus at the time of creation and even right up until the point of initial sin there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred. There also would be no "Word" meaning bible or books of the bible either, as it had not been written, nor are there poeple to write and read it.
I think this logic is flawed (I maybe proved wrong though).
You assume that for something to exist, it must have a purpose ("there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred"). Why must this be the case. Someone can probably prove me wrong, but what purpose does Mercury (the planet) have to exist? If we can not determine a purpose, does that then mean it doesn't exist, according to your reasoning?
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: The Gawd on January 10, 2013, 06:54:11 AM
Now, in popular Christian theology, Jesus is said to have come to redeem mankind of its sinful nature. Thus at the time of creation and even right up until the point of initial sin there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred. There also would be no "Word" meaning bible or books of the bible either, as it had not been written, nor are there poeple to write and read it.
I think this logic is flawed (I maybe proved wrong though).
You assume that for something to exist, it must have a purpose ("there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred"). Why must this be the case. Someone can probably prove me wrong, but what purpose does Mercury (the planet) have to exist? If we can not determine a purpose, does that then mean it doesn't exist, according to your reasoning?
You are generally correct, but specifically wrong.

Things dont need a purpose to exist. However, I am not making that assumption, rather parroting Christian belief. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son so that whoever believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" seems to map out Jesus' purpose quite well. And I'm pretty sure thats supposed to be the verse OF ALL verses.

And theres more:
“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10)

 “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost” (Matthew 18:11)

 “Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28)

 “But He said to them, ‘I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose’” (Luke 4:43)


and so on and so forth
It is not MY doing of giving purpose to things that need none, that is the work of religion. (see "what is the purpose or meaning of life?")

Now lets put all this into context, I know how Christians love context... Jesus' real name is Yeshua. This translates into some version of "The Lords Salvation." I ask you, "salvation" for who and for what if there are no humans who have sinned and need salvation? Why would a god in heaven have a name that means "The Lords Salvation?" That name strictly relates to humans AFTER supposed sin. Had he existed even in concept before sin his name would be more like Yahweh's... "I Am" or "I exist" or something similar. It wouldnt relate strictly to human existence.

As for Mercury the planet, apparently its purpose is to declare the glory of god!
Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
Now, in popular Christian theology, Jesus is said to have come to redeem mankind of its sinful nature. Thus at the time of creation and even right up until the point of initial sin there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred. There also would be no "Word" meaning bible or books of the bible either, as it had not been written, nor are there poeple to write and read it.
I think this logic is flawed (I maybe proved wrong though).
You assume that for something to exist, it must have a purpose ("there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred"). Why must this be the case. Someone can probably prove me wrong, but what purpose does Mercury (the planet) have to exist? If we can not determine a purpose, does that then mean it doesn't exist, according to your reasoning?

Ah, yes, well.... Sure the bible says Jesus came to save people from sins, but John's Gospel goes further to say that Jesus had always been with the father and his coming was his transference from immaterial god to human flesh. So Jesus came to the earth for a purpose but he was, before that, part of the necessary being that is god and for which a purpose is not required.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: kcrady on January 10, 2013, 03:06:20 PM
Even though technically Jesus doesn't have to have a purpose to exist, it sure was convenient that Yahweh was/had a sacrificial "Son" handy.  Imagine if he'd been a Duality with just Father and Holy Spirit.  "Well, I can't go, because I'm the one whose wrath the sacrifice is supposed to appease, and I can't send Him, 'cause crucifying the Holy Ghost would be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.  Whelp.  Guess the Devil wins."
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Nick on January 10, 2013, 04:13:12 PM
Had not thought of it like that.  Yeah, God must have known forever that he would need the "boy".  Kind of messes big time with that free will thing?  Also, kind of gives Eve a bum rap ... kind of like Judas.

I don't want to complain but it appears we got the "special ed" of God(s) in the draw for this planet.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2013, 05:00:27 PM
Had not thought of it like that.  Yeah, God must have known forever that he would need the "boy".  Kind of messes big time with that free will thing?  Also, kind of gives Eve a bum rap ... kind of like Judas.

I' not sure it messes with free will exactly. If we view the imaginary god as sitting outwith time - in what we might call eternity - we can expect that it would be able to see the whole real of time as a single glance, as if everything is happening together. Thus, as it is creating the world and the people  - the beginning of time so to speak - he can also see forward in time to see what the people make of life and see that they go wrong and sin along happily. So, without affecting the free will of any individual he can see something will be needed to fix it.

If anyone has free will problems, though, it is the god. He has to force himself to be born as a man (with himself as father as well!) so that he can be reconciled to the people by giving his life to himself. So really, after he saw people sin, his free will was lost!

Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 10, 2013, 05:01:55 PM
The story requires sin. Otherwise there would be nothing to talk about.

Thousands of years ago someone got his toga in a wad because his wife cheated on him or someone stole his wheel or something and here we are, stuck with a story that makes no sense as anything but fiction and yet millions think it is the truth personified.

Clearly we haven't evolved quite enough.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Sarevok on January 11, 2013, 12:23:11 AM
Now lets put all this into context, I know how Christians love context... Jesus' real name is Yeshua. This translates into some version of "The Lords Salvation." I ask you, "salvation" for who and for what if there are no humans who have sinned and need salvation? Why would a god in heaven have a name that means "The Lords Salvation?" That name strictly relates to humans AFTER supposed sin. Had he existed even in concept before sin his name would be more like Yahweh's... "I Am" or "I exist" or something similar. It wouldnt relate strictly to human existence.
You are extrapolating Jesus' human name back onto he's God form, thus accusing him of only being around for a sacrifice. If you instead take the view that before having the name Jesus given to him whilst on Earth, he was called "The Son", then this doesn't make any sort of implication that that was he's sole purpose.

As for Mercury the planet, apparently its purpose is to declare the glory of god!
Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
I was merely working on what you seemed to be claiming, that Jesus only exists because he has a purpose, and was then asking what Mars' purpose was. But I'm assuming this is purely having a go at what I said.

Even though technically Jesus doesn't have to have a purpose to exist, it sure was convenient that Yahweh was/had a sacrificial "Son" handy.  Imagine if he'd been a Duality with just Father and Holy Spirit.  "Well, I can't go, because I'm the one whose wrath the sacrifice is supposed to appease, and I can't send Him, 'cause crucifying the Holy Ghost would be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.  Whelp.  Guess the Devil wins."
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 11, 2013, 02:50:18 AM
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.

I have to ask, Sarevok. Why can't you see it? This story is so obviously human in origin. What sort of omnipotent god puts two newbies into a paradise, allows satan to wander in, gets pissed when the happy couple make one mistake when egged on by the bad guy, kicks them out, and then they go forth and multiply. Into an obnoxious group of humans that piss off the guy that can foresee everything so he drowns them all except for one family, who is so unimpressed with the death and  mayhem they witnessed that they are right back at the bad guy stuff within weeks of landing, and who consider god so irrelevant that three generations later some are building a tower to heaven and there are already enough of them to let god give them all new languages and send them off to the four corners of the earth or whatever so they won't be able to communicate. When all they have to do is whip out some more folks over the next three generations and whammo, they have enough to build another tower. But that plot line is passé by then but that's okay because you've got Abraham and Job and Moses and other things to do while folks run around in their various sin cities doing the horizontal mambo or whatever and continually pissing off the big guy so down comes the kid to go through the sacrifice ritual and bang!, a path to righteousness is created. And it all applies today. Two thousand years after the kid promised he would return. Like, you know, within the lifetime of those he told he would return.

Most religions have a moral component. Do this or that right or the god of poison ivy will rub leaves all over your private parts. Don't anger the gods by doing that or a few of them will come down and boil you in oil and serve you with lentils. Religions contain advise, moral lessons, guidelines and just plain old hints and tips on how to decorate your hut for under 50 shekels. And they all insist they are right and the rest are false.

Coincidence? I don't think so. Each one is made up, and each one exists for the specific needs of that particular group. When christianity spread far and wide, the groups went into customization mode because goats fucking in front of striped sticks and the fear of iron chariots didn't apply any more. Catholicism begat Lutheranism which begat Calvinism which begat the First Immaculate Church of Rattlesnakes and Root Beer and Jesus, and 30,000+ subdivisions later one of them ended up as you.

A real god doesn't need drama. Humans do. A real god doesn't need to staple his kid to sticks. He just says "Golly gee, perhaps I wasn't clear. Here, let me clarify with a new book, illustrated by Michelangelo, with movie rights sold to Paramount."  Relying on goat herders and camel jockeys to get his word out was about as wise as letting first graders set national gun policy. Oh wait, they're actually qualified now. Nevermind.

Anyway, the Jesus thing is just one more in a silly string of tales designed to impress or control or scare or all of the above the people directly under the influence of the clergy of the time. Not because god casually mentioned that they should do so, but because they themselves decided to, whether on their own or because their overlords told them to.

This is human all the way down. None of it required a god in any way, shape or form. If it had, none of it would have happened  that way. I understand that you are impressed with the bible, but this is because you have been told it is true. Not because it actually is.

A competent god would have given competent instructions to beings that he competently constructed and competently taught. A competent god would allow for variation, stay involved with his creation and show his love rather than just mouthing the words invisibly. A competent god would insist on clergy that was close to as moral as he is and use his infinite wisdom to bestow a bit of understanding in himself when confronted with the occasional rebellious soul. A competent god would have competent angels, a viable storyline and an interest in those whom he is forcing to exist in his gated community.

There is little that is inherently moral in evolved beings. However, we are smart enough to label things right and wrong and certainly some of us are going to make up stories that teach lessons pertinent to the social order of things. At times they will take on religious overtones as gods and other forces are introduced to explain certain otherwise strange plot lines. Civilizations and tribes have been doing this for many thousands of years. It is to be expected. What is not to be expected is that the same tripe will be swallowed over and over by generation after generation for thousands of years. Except we didn't evolve well enough to avoid self-delusion and/or fantasies.

Jesus didn't die for our sins, but millions have died for his story. God didn't create the heavens and the earth in seven days, but millions have died believing or died killing because they thought that to be true. Jesus didn't do his zombie routine, but many millions more have perished with that thought, either believing or fearing it. And even today, there are those believers who would kill me on the spot if they had the chance, merely because I am not as gullible as they are.

The lack of perfection in humans comes from a myriad of sources, biological, social, psychological, etc. But none of them come from one silly and naïve young lady who dared to eat of the tree of knowledge, and none of us have been saved by a mythical forsaken son.

I'm sure if you've read this you are either assuming the your god is testing you or that this is satan tempting you. Religious people keep their world small enough to fit into and fill the thought centers of the brain, thereby disallowing anything original or unique or true from taking up valuable space. I get so tired of hearing ten thousand different excuses for every frickin' verse in the bible. We get theist after theist here telling us their truth, and they never, and I mean never, agree with each other enough for us to see a pattern. Unless you're into Jackson Pollack.

You are here telling us your version. mrhaberling is here telling us his. You know who else has been here? BladeoftheImmortal, Jeremy0, SHIN KARI. joebowers, Frank, TheGodYouForsaken, holybuckets, SwasyesGhost, Jstwebbrowsing, Johnny Spunkypants, JesusOnlySaves, Iloveyou, meconopsilo, Olivianus, etc., etc., etc. That's just in the last 6 or 8 months. That's not even all of them. And guess what. No two of you agree on enough to make your alibi stick.

I consider this inconsistency to be a sure sign of a poorly written and completely false story. No god, no matter how infinite he is, can come up with that many versions of himself. Let alone that many excuses for all the inconsistencies.

/rant







Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on January 11, 2013, 06:57:34 AM

I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.

Well, I'm not so sure. Christian teaching is that the three persons of the trinity are just one god (so as to keep the monotheistic belief system) so, in a sense there was juts one god before the universe and afterwards too.

Then again, the all-knowing god knew from the beginning what was going to happen yet he juts let it happen until a point when he got angry. He then got so angry that he demanded that the only way people could get rid of their sin was if he sacrificed himself to himself to get rid of his anger so Jesus was born and did just that. Jesus then, being 'very God of very God,'1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) gave up his life to himself and everything was OK again.

That's about it, isn't it, Sarevok?
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: The Gawd on January 12, 2013, 07:05:50 PM
Quote
Excellent question Gawd

How about this.  Just a little something that I threw together : - )

'The Word' is equated with the 'Logos' of Greek philosophy.  Another usage of the term 'Logos' is language or discourse.

'The Word' can be understood to be either language or the principle behind language.  Language allows us to differentiate between things.  If we couldn't differentiate then there would just be one big nameless whole.  But after language we have 'things' because we give aspects of our experience (consciousness) names.  We even name ourselves 'I' and this 'I' somehow seems to separate us from the rest of reality.  So our very selves depend on a name.

1. So through language (esp naming) all things were made!  A universe of things (matter) was constituted.
Language is HOW we describe things not distinguish between them. Even before things have names or descriptions they exist. The "I" doesnt separate us at all, just describes or makes reference to you w/o using your name.


Quote
Language also differentiates humans from animals.  Each of us takes on the name 'I' at some early stage of our lives.  And both OT and NT suggest that 'I AM' is the name of God.
What about animals that can use sign language? Can we assume they use the "I" as well? Such as the apes in the following link...there is a debate on whether or not the apes have mastered the language, but there is no question of whether they used it. This would destroy this point, no? It also would show consciousness in animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)

Quote
2. So in this way we are made in his image.


So the first name, the first word, what could it be ?  I suppose it would have to be the name of God wouldn't it !?
If you want to throw all the other names to the side. It sounds, to me, like someone trying to piece a story together backwards. Why would Yahweh need so many names? As you stated earlier we use language to describe differences. Why would we need to differenciate between Yahweh and anything else? What does "God" need with a name? Think about that one.

Quote
3. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jesus is alleged to have said 'before Abraham was I am' - and they took up stones to throw at him because he was taking on God's name.

The significance of God's name -

Every statement can be doubted except one.  The entire universe and even my body may be a dream, an illusion, a trick.  But I cannot doubt the dreamer.  If I doubt my own consciousness then this act requires an 'I' (consciousness) in order to do so.  Thus doubting the statement proves it true!.  Is there any other statement that is proved true by doubting it ?  Is it coincidence that the only statement that we can be certain of is 'I am' ?
Dont quite follow the logic here. Doubting whether Jesus thinks or says he's "God" doesnt make it so. If I stated I were the POTUS, you doubting it would not make it true. If you are simply stating that we exist then I have no reason to doubt it. Even if existence were a dream, we would exist in the context of that dream.

Quote
This analysis can go on to explain how humans separate from God by taking on a self (a personal 'I') which can be equated to 'original sin' passed on from generation to generation without thinking.  I take God's name but I assign it to a separate individual self.  I attempt to separate myself from the rest of reality.  Now, the world is a threat to me.  It can harm me.  Others are now my competitors.
Again, if animals use the "I" your premise is proven incorrect, no?

Quote
The self is associated with selfishness while one of the core elements of religions is to promote selflessness, unity, self denial.  So what happens if we become fully selfless ?  The individual dissolves and the whole is restored.  Unity with God - the one true self - the whole - the source of all consciousness and also the nsmr of consciousness as well - 'I AM'.
With this I completely disagree. There is nothing at all selfless about proclaiming that the entire universe was made with people in mind. There is nothing selfless about thinking humans were given dominion over animals by a supreme being. I'd also state that one of the main tenets of religions, at least the Abrahamic religions, is to promote division amongst people. The Holy books of the religions maintain a story of "Us vs Them". The idea of "self denial" , IMO, is a tool used to control you. If they frame things that are natural to you as inherently evil (sex being the main one) then they can use guilt as a weapon to make you think you are evil, and thus in need of their remedy...which of course comes with obedience and usually a monetary price that is limitless...

However, if what youre saying is "The Word" simply means "I AM" and you want to shoehorn Jesus into the I AM statement based upon the passage you quoted you still have to deal with the issues I raised in the OP.

[edited to fix the quotes]
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Sarevok on January 14, 2013, 08:34:31 PM
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.
<snip> /rant
Quick question, do you want a response? Or are you just venting at me?

I'm also saddened that Gawd didn't respond to my post.

Well, I'm not so sure. Christian teaching is that the three persons of the trinity are just one god (so as to keep the monotheistic belief system) so, in a sense there was juts one god before the universe and afterwards too.
One God, Three entities, yes. No, I can't describe it very well.

Then again, the all-knowing god knew from the beginning what was going to happen yet he juts let it happen until a point when he got angry. He then got so angry that he demanded that the only way people could get rid of their sin was if he sacrificed himself to himself to get rid of his anger so Jesus was born and did just that. Jesus then, being 'very God of very God,'1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) gave up his life to himself and everything was OK again.
:-\ Did you actually read the OT at all? Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins. Jesus sacrifice covered all sins, hence no more sacrifices are needed.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 14, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.
<snip> /rant
Quick question, do you want a response? Or are you just venting at me?

Nope, I wasn't venting. The /rant thing was sort of a joke because I do tend to get long at times. That's not to say that I was one of the three happiest people on the planet at the time. Further discussion is up to you.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: The Gawd on January 15, 2013, 06:51:50 AM
You are extrapolating Jesus' human name back onto he's God form, thus accusing him of only being around for a sacrifice. If you instead take the view that before having the name Jesus given to him whilst on Earth, he was called "The Son", then this doesn't make any sort of implication that that was he's sole purpose.
Does a "son" not imply a mother? What Ive done is use the name the bible gave us, and the purpose the bible gave us. You have not addressed the initial problem.

Quote
I was merely working on what you seemed to be claiming, that Jesus only exists because he has a purpose, and was then asking what Mars' purpose was. But I'm assuming this is purely having a go at what I said.
the fact that Mercury or Mars or any other planet has no purpose that we can tell works against your general POV, no? Asking what Mars' purpose is like asking the meaning of life.

Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: naemhni on January 15, 2013, 08:49:15 AM
Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins.

Why?
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2013, 09:35:14 AM
Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins.

Why?

Because the originators of religion made something out of creating sins for which a sacrifice was required and the system multiplied until there was a large class of priestly people in Israel all dependent on the food and things brought in for sacrifices. It was the way the system worked.

Thus, when stories about Jesus started and the writers had to consider why Jesus was killed, sacrifice was the way to go - a cleansing sacrifice to blot out men's sins. It juts follows a known way of working in the older religion and was thus understandable to the people they were trying to convert.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: kcrady on January 15, 2013, 09:11:10 PM
Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins. Jesus sacrifice covered all sins, hence no more sacrifices are needed.

Where did these rules come from?  Did Yahweh make them up (i.e., he could have chosen some other 'required' method of 'covering sins,' or just not created 'Sin' as a metaphysical essence needing covering in the first place)?  Or is he subject to them also, so that creating the ancient Hebrew system followed by sending Jesus as a sacrifice was his only option?  If the latter, then who decided on those particular rules?
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 15, 2013, 09:20:45 PM
Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins. Jesus sacrifice covered all sins, hence no more sacrifices are needed.

A loving god that requires so much as one ant to be squished under one boot on one sidewalk is obviously a fraud.

Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Sarevok on January 22, 2013, 12:37:02 AM
Does a "son" not imply a mother? What Ive done is use the name the bible gave us, and the purpose the bible gave us. You have not addressed the initial problem.
As a description yes, as a title, no. Members of the Catholic clergy are refereed to as Father, but that doesn't mean they are fathers.
The initial problem you propose is, in my interpretation "John says that in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Since Jesus wasn't needed until a sacrifice was needed, hence he's name, what was this Word being?". So, my response would be, "It is Jesus. Yes, he's earth name usually equates to coming to save, but he's original name does not imply this, so he wasn't created out of necessity"

the fact that Mercury or Mars or any other planet has no purpose that we can tell works against your general POV, no? Asking what Mars' purpose is like asking the meaning of life.
I would simply say that it was for us to study/observe. I sometimes give an example of an ant farm. You don't just stick ants in an ant farm with nothing to do, you usually add dirt, leaves, twigs, so they have something to do. God created the rest of the universe, so we would have thing to study/learn.
The analogy is flawed, since we didn't create the ants, but I hope it gets my point across.

Why?
Because God is loving and just. God loves us, and wants us to be with him, but he is also just, which means he requires justice for sins. This was originally achieved through animal sacrifice, and is now achieved through Jesus' sacrifice. If a judge had their child brought before them, and they dismissed the case because they loved their son, would that be a fair/just judge, or a bias one. Point being, God doesn't simply forgive what we do as the judge did, he requires justice for the wrong things we did.

Where did these rules come from?  Did Yahweh make them up (i.e., he could have chosen some other 'required' method of 'covering sins,' or just not created 'Sin' as a metaphysical essence needing covering in the first place)?
Your first part is correct, so I've omitted the second part for space.
If by making them up you imply the same way he made up the laws of the universe, yes. I didn't want to spout this, but I will for the sake of argument, "For the wages of sin is death"(Rom6:23), sin causes death. As a result, death/sacrifice is needed to save us from death. That is why the Jews needed to perform animal sacrifices, to cover their sins. That is also why Jesus came to the earth, to cover all of man's sins, once and for all.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Graybeard on January 23, 2013, 11:15:14 AM
As a description yes, as a title, no. Members of the Catholic clergy are refereed to as Father, but that doesn't mean they are fathers.
I think the terms that were used by the pious were "My Heavenly Father = God and "my earthly father" = natural father. "my spiritual father" thus making the distinction whilst at the same time keeping to Jesus's strange command.

Quote
The initial problem you propose is, in my interpretation "John says that in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Since Jesus wasn't needed until a sacrifice was needed, hence his name, what was this Word being?". So, my response would be, "It is Jesus. Yes, he's earth name usually equates to coming to save, but he's original name does not imply this, so he wasn't created out of necessity"
I'm not at all sure that what you are trying to say is Catholic dogma. You suggest that Jesus was created. This is to deny the Trinity, which is for you an unforgivable mortal sin; for me it is common sense.

Quote
for the sake of argument, "For the wages of sin is death"(Rom6:23), sin causes death. As a result, death/sacrifice is needed to save us from death. That is why the Jews needed to perform animal sacrifices, to cover their sins.
No, not entirely. There were sin offerings but the majority of sacrifices (animal) were simply to feed the priests by propitiating the various gods (the Elohim); this point is made in (IIRC) Jeremiah when Yahweh allows sacrifice to Himself.

Quote
That is also why Jesus came to the earth, to cover all of man's sins, once and for all.
Again, this is not entirely correct. I suggest you consider the second explicit human sacrifice in the Bible:

2Ki:3:26: And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.
2Ki:3:27: Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. [Ed. GB - to Chemosh, the God of the Moabites]  And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

and the story of Jephthah: Judges:11:31-40, which is the first human sacrifice to Yahweh, God of War.

You will note that if you wanted to impress and horrify an Israelite, you would sacrifice a human.

Given this tradition, the myth then became that Christ was God's son, and, in the same way that the king of Moab horrified and impressed the attacking Israelites; in the same way in which the solemnity of a promise to God was depicted in Numbers, then the legend (and that is all that it is) arose that God gave His Son for some purpose. The purpose was invented later.

You will note that the Gospel of Mark does not have the resurrection and is generally regarded as being the most reliable.

You will note that Israel did not abandon Judaism - so God's Plan went wrong.  So what was that all about then?
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Nam on January 23, 2013, 09:40:13 PM
"In the begiining God had multiple personality disorder, then after creating everything in a matter of days he found he was schizophrenic. Then before he became a genocidal tyrant he cried a lot, and promoted incest amongst His flock."

That's Biblegod. Show me how it isn't?

-Nam
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 23, 2013, 09:55:56 PM
Nam

I'll keep this short  ;)

You forgot paranoid. And you forgot his phobia re: iron chariots.

The dude was MESSED UP!

Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Nam on January 23, 2013, 09:58:46 PM
My apologies, you're right. Also, I think he's a crossdresser, too.

-Nam
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 23, 2013, 10:04:10 PM
Well, since the operation, I can't blame Her...
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Nam on January 23, 2013, 10:07:01 PM
True.


-Nam
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: kcrady on January 26, 2013, 03:16:37 AM
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.

Revelation 13:8 (NIV):

Quote
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

If this translation is accurate, it implies that the sacrificial Lamb (presumably Jesus) was in some sense sacrificed prior to creation.  This seems to be a popular view among Evangelical Christians (http://www.bing.com/search?q=slain+before+the+foundation+of+the+world&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC).  In which case, my reference to Jesus as a "sacrificial son," is accurate, since the sacrifice is an eternal part of his nature and/or mission.

Different translations give different results though:

Quote
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been [a]written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (New American Standard Bible)

Quote
and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered. (New Revised Standard Version)

These attach the clause "from the foundation of the world" to the book, rather than to the Lamb.

Quote
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (King James Version)

Well, if Elizabethan English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!  Slain from the foundation of the world it is!  But wait, there's more:

Quote
And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Young's Literal Translation)

This one could arguably be interpreted either way, depending on whether you think it means "written in the scroll [of the life of the Lamb slain] from the foundation of the world" or "written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world."

This sort of thing ought to set off alarm warnings in the mind of every "Bible-believing" Christian.  Whether it's Jesus that was slain from the foundation of the world (making his sacrifice an eternal aspect of his nature, hence "sacrificial son"), or the names of the saved being written in the book before the foundation of the world (and thus, no free will)...is kinda important.  The whole premise of a perfect, infallible, all-powerful god who wants to communicate his self-revelation to* us through a book--and that our eternal destiny should depend on our specific understanding of it (i.e., Vile Heretics burn in Hell)--collapses when you run into something like this.  Fortunately, this thread happens to be in the right section of the Forum. :) 


*Edit: Computer glitch wouldn't let me finish, had to post what I had, then go start a different browser.  Also, some other edits made during proofreading after I finished writing the post.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: J0SH on February 28, 2013, 07:25:10 AM
"In the beginning was the Bullshit, and the Bullshit was with God, and the Bullshit was God"
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Graybeard on February 28, 2013, 05:28:32 PM
Revelation 13:8 (NIV): All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

If this translation is accurate, it implies that the sacrificial Lamb (presumably Jesus) was in some sense sacrificed prior to creation.  ...

Different translations give different results though:

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been [a]written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (New American Standard Bible)

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (King James Version)

Well, if Elizabethan English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!  Slain from the foundation of the world it is!  But wait, there's more:

And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Young's Literal Translation)

This one could arguably be interpreted either way, depending on whether you think it means "written in the scroll [of the life of the Lamb slain] from the foundation of the world" or "written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world."

The problem is that it may be translated any way but it remains an example of prolepsis

The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare:
Quote
prolepsis, a figure of speech in which something is described prematurely in terms that are not yet applicable: ‘I am dead, Horatio’ (Hamlet 5.2.285).

The dramatic effect of this figure of speech was not lost upon Shakespeare nor those of his contemporaries who were busy writing KJV1611 by translating the Vulgate.

The post-positional adjective emphasises the drama and gravity of what is being said.

The classical example is:  “The robbers befriended the rich man and offered to show him the way to the hotel. He agreed and the robbers and their dead companion walked off into the night.”

The Bible is full of prolepsis, usually in the form of cryptic passages announcing the arrival of the Savior/Second Coming/Paradises/ etc:
Quote
1946   W. Manson Jesus, the Messiah 164   Examples of the prolepsis by which the coming of the Son of Man is anticipated in the fortunes of Jesus.
so much so that, as you see, books are written on it.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Tonus on March 05, 2013, 11:11:35 AM
If by making them up you imply the same way he made up the laws of the universe, yes. I didn't want to spout this, but I will for the sake of argument, "For the wages of sin is death"(Rom6:23), sin causes death. As a result, death/sacrifice is needed to save us from death. That is why the Jews needed to perform animal sacrifices, to cover their sins. That is also why Jesus came to the earth, to cover all of man's sins, once and for all.
But in Luke 5:20-25, Jesus not only forgives a man his sins by stating it (no blood was spilled) but corroborates his authority to do so by curing the man's paralysis.  No death or sacrifice was required.  Did Jesus lie when he claimed to forgive the man's sins?  Did he sin himself, by not following protocol?  This protocol was so binding that Jesus wound up giving his own life, and when he prayed to his father to ask that he "take this cup" from him (ie, find a way to prevent his torture and death) he was denied.  Is this another instance where we shrug our shoulders, blame "fallibility" and act as if it doesn't matter because his intentions were good?
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 09:36:48 AM
I was told this thread "proves" John 1:1 can't be Jesus. That would contradict it's self. Notice The Word is capitalized indicating it's a proper noun or a name/title. If TheWord is not Jesus then we have a contradiction in John1:14 The Word became flesh.

Gen 1:1 in the beginning god created... The original Hebrew shows the word translated as God there is pural. Elohim is also in a plural form showing clearly that God even when he created was still a trinity.

 Preexistance of Jesus seems to be a stumbling block for you all as well. He already was/is that is how he can be sent otherwise he would be brought into the world. As for Jesus being "The Salvation" wouldn't it stand to reason that God being all knowing would already know what would happen and had a plan to save us before the foundation of the world Rom8:28-29?

As for free will, many Christians would say we all have free will. However, there is a doctrine of Grace (calvinism) which says the only free will is that of God and ours is only an illusion. Many Christians believe this to be the case.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: The Gawd on December 09, 2013, 10:44:29 AM
Elohim is not and cannot be the trinity, that is shoehorning Jesus and the ghost into something it never was. It has been addressed.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 09, 2013, 11:06:43 AM
I was told this thread "proves" John 1:1 can't be Jesus. That would contradict it's self. Notice The Word is capitalized indicating it's a proper noun or a name/title. If TheWord is not Jesus then we have a contradiction in John1:14 The Word became flesh.

Gen 1:1 in the beginning god created... The original Hebrew shows the word translated as God there is pural. Elohim is also in a plural form showing clearly that God even when he created was still a trinity.

 Preexistance of Jesus seems to be a stumbling block for you all as well. He already was/is that is how he can be sent otherwise he would be brought into the world. As for Jesus being "The Salvation" wouldn't it stand to reason that God being all knowing would already know what would happen and had a plan to save us before the foundation of the world Rom8:28-29?

As for free will, many Christians would say we all have free will. However, there is a doctrine of Grace (calvinism) which says the only free will is that of God and ours is only an illusion. Many Christians believe this to be the case.

Well, Harbinger, I take it you don't have Greek so have not read John in Greek. If so, let me point out to you that the original documents were written in capital letters only with no gaps between the words. Thus, in the original the word 'WORD' was not a proper noun or even an ordinary noun apart from the word chosen by the reader. Translators have taken the view that, given the usage in the passage, that this is a proper noun.

Quote
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. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.[1]
 1. quoted from http://biblia.com/books/nrsv/Jn1.1

This text talks about the pre-existing Word and, later in the chapter talks about the Word becoming flesh. That, to most people means Jesus. Also the word for 'word' in Greek is Logos. Logos was using the Greek philosophy to mean more than just word and those meanings  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos)have to be considered in understanding the text.

So far as Jesus is concerned there is nothing in Genesis that precludes his pre-existence and, indeed, the very fact of the plural use of Elohim probably encouraged John in what he wrote.

Maybe, harbinger, you could show us an interpretation of John that precludes the connection of Jesus and the Word.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 01:49:03 PM
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-1.htm

As you will see from this link Koina Greek in fact uses spaces And capital letters. You are thinking of Hebrew.

I can't supply a translation that makes "the Word" not Jesus. It would contradict the txt if it were translated as such. I would However suggest maybe looking at the JW's new world translation. I have not. Nor care to. I know what they believe about Jesus in the first place. I assume they would have had to butcher this translation to fit. Just bear in mind they had NO linguistic experts of any kind, not even english, on the translation board. Furthermore, they started with an idea to prove rather than seeking an objective translation. I would also add Most every Christian that has bothered to study what they teach would agree they are not Christian.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 09, 2013, 03:48:21 PM
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-1.htm

As you will see from this link Koina Greek in fact uses spaces And capital letters. You are thinking of Hebrew.

No, I have Hebrew and Greek and can assume you that the ancient manuscripts are as described. You are looking at the text tidied up and arrange for you to see.

Quote

I can't supply a translation that makes "the Word" not Jesus. It would contradict the txt if it were translated as such. I would However suggest maybe looking at the JW's new world translation. I have not. Nor care to. I know what they believe about Jesus in the first place. I assume they would have had to butcher this translation to fit. Just bear in mind they had NO linguistic experts of any kind, not even english, on the translation board. Furthermore, they started with an idea to prove rather than seeking an objective translation. I would also add Most every Christian that has bothered to study what they teach would agree they are not Christian.

I understood you to be saying the the Word was not Jesus, If you accept that, fine, it will save discussion.

The J Ws modify one word in John from 'and the word was god' to and the word was a god.' They then claim that they are monotheistic whilst leaving Jesus as some subservient god which doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Graybeard on December 09, 2013, 04:10:32 PM
There is a problem with the Gospel of John. Firstly, John did not write it. Christians generously assume that John was “the inspiration.” You can take this how you want. It was thought by Eusabius[1] that John was written to counter various early heresies. This idea held sway until the late 19th century. Today, it is regarded as a composite piece constructed around 100AD by various authors from various sources (including their imagination) none of which are particularly reliable.

Examination of the Gospel shows that there are several authors. The first seems to have died part way into the work and his job was taken over by others who, like Eusabius, had their own agenda.

Wikipedia has
Quote
The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[23] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[24]
1.   An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2.   A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3.   The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.[25]

And adds
Quote
Among others, Rudolf Bultmann suggested[29] that the text of the gospel is partially out of order; for instance, chapter 6 should follow chapter 4:[30]
4:53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
4:54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.
6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
Chapter 5 deals with a visit to Jerusalem, while chapter 7 opens with Jesus again in Galilee because "he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him," a consequence of the incident in Jerusalem described in chapter 5. There are more proposed rearrangements

It does not end there. In http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Jackson.html we read,
Quote
What is remarkable in Jackson's work is that in spite of being very much a modernist and a realist about the internal evidence concerning John's Gospel, he nonetheless sees a clear break, a severe unconnectedness in John between 7:52 and 8:12 when the Pericope de Adultera is removed.

He is so convinced of this incontinuity, he uses it as evidence that John generally has suffered editing or dislocations by a final redactor or compiler. Although convinced by others that John 8:1-11 is an interpolation on textual grounds, he is just as certain that its removal solves nothing of the problem of John at this place in the text.
[…]
The Pool of Bethesda: John 5:3b-4
[Just] As certainly, the verses ch. v, 3 b, 4, are no part of the original Gospel, and here it is suggested that an evident gap has been filled in, by way of explanation, by some later hand; that, as the section originally stood, the genuine v, 7 was unintelligible, and hence the piece of information which, now properly relegated to the margin of the R.V., ultimately found its way into the text[2]
 2. The story of the Pool of Bethesda is exceptionally idiotic. Whoever wrote it had never been there and assumed that nobody would ever bother checking - he was wrong and in most Bible versions, it is omitted.

At this stage, you may be coming to the conclusion that John is just so much garbage and invention that has been badly edited. However, it is little or no different from any of the other Gospels in this respect. Some of the scribblings bear a remarkable resemblance to the Qumran Scrolls and probably account for the “non-Jewish” nature of the Gospel.

So, when we come to ask what John:1:1 means, the answer is “God knows”. The additions, amendments, corrections, insertions, redactions, inventions, etc. etc. were done all over the place.

I looked up a commentary on John:1:1 and as a bonus got two. The first was an incomprehensible passage that simply assumed things. The second was a wall of text that left me feeing that nothing had been explained and that if so much writing were required to explain one verse, then the writer had no idea of what it meant either.

 1. also known as “Eusabius the Liar” for his idea that telling lies is a good way of gaining converts and thus saving souls.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 09, 2013, 04:51:39 PM
Yes, Greybeard, the gospels are a bit of a mishmash of texts and redactions. Nonetheless, I'm dubious that any have a a first-hand eye-witness account in them. R E Brown is  Catholic scholar and  does his best to help the church out but given the John is so late compared with the other gospels it seems hard to believe that he has anything other than third hand stories and, or course, his own working of the theology especially in the long speeches he gives to Jesus.

Really, the gospels give us an insight into the beliefs and practice of various churches in the late 1st century even though they purport to be describing the events of the late 20s, first century. the only problem we have is that we don't quite know which churches originated which gospel!
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Truth OT on December 09, 2013, 05:42:20 PM
How the word 'Logos' is translated and/or understood within the context of John helps determine what meanings can be gleaned from the passage. Logos was a word familiar to the Jews of the 1st century as it was used by the Hellenists, with Philo being chief among them, to denote an intermediary divine being such as a messenger of the Lord that was necessary to bridge the gap between God and the material world. It was also thought of and used as a stand in for the reason, intent, or purpose (e.i. logic) behind one's actions.

All that said, it sure seems likely that the writer of John 1:1-15 was equating Jesus to this intent, message, or "word" of God, especially in verse 14 where it speaks of this logos of god becoming embodied (made flesh). Even with that, we still have no way of knowing the intent of the writer. Was the writer saying Jesus was an avatar used by God to dwell amongst men? Was he saying that Jesus was the embodiment of God's creative intent and the reason behind it all? Who knows?

Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Truth OT on December 09, 2013, 05:50:57 PM
R E Brown is  Catholic scholar and  does his best to help the church out but given the John is so late compared with the other gospels it seems hard to believe that he has anything other than third hand stories and, or course, his own working of the theology especially in the long speeches he gives to Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_(bishop_of_Woolwich)#Redating_the_New_Testament.2C_1976
John A. Robinson actually wrote a book entitled Redating the New Testament where he asserts that the entirety of the texts were writen prior to the Temple's destruction in AD 70.

What he and those who believe the idea of early authorship seem to miss is that their assertions give Bible critics yet another reason to doubt the truthfulness of the NT scriptures as its prediction of a triumphant returning Christ in the 1st century clearly failed.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: harbinger77 on December 09, 2013, 06:05:53 PM
There is a problem with the Gospel of John. Firstly, John did not write it. Christians generously assume that John was “the inspiration.” You can take this how you want. It was thought by Eusabius[1] that John was written to counter various early heresies. This idea held sway until the late 19th century. Today, it is regarded as a composite piece constructed around 100AD by various authors from various sources (including their imagination) none of which are particularly reliable.

Examination of the Gospel shows that there are several authors. The first seems to have died part way into the work and his job was taken over by others who, like Eusabius, had their own agenda.

Wikipedia has
Quote
The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[23] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[24]
1.   An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2.   A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3.   The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.[25]

And adds
Quote
Among others, Rudolf Bultmann suggested[29] that the text of the gospel is partially out of order; for instance, chapter 6 should follow chapter 4:[30]
4:53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
4:54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.
6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
Chapter 5 deals with a visit to Jerusalem, while chapter 7 opens with Jesus again in Galilee because "he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him," a consequence of the incident in Jerusalem described in chapter 5. There are more proposed rearrangements

It does not end there. In http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Jackson.html we read,
Quote
What is remarkable in Jackson's work is that in spite of being very much a modernist and a realist about the internal evidence concerning John's Gospel, he nonetheless sees a clear break, a severe unconnectedness in John between 7:52 and 8:12 when the Pericope de Adultera is removed.

He is so convinced of this incontinuity, he uses it as evidence that John generally has suffered editing or dislocations by a final redactor or compiler. Although convinced by others that John 8:1-11 is an interpolation on textual grounds, he is just as certain that its removal solves nothing of the problem of John at this place in the text.
[…]
The Pool of Bethesda: John 5:3b-4
[Just] As certainly, the verses ch. v, 3 b, 4, are no part of the original Gospel, and here it is suggested that an evident gap has been filled in, by way of explanation, by some later hand; that, as the section originally stood, the genuine v, 7 was unintelligible, and hence the piece of information which, now properly relegated to the margin of the R.V., ultimately found its way into the text[2]
 2. The story of the Pool of Bethesda is exceptionally idiotic. Whoever wrote it had never been there and assumed that nobody would ever bother checking - he was wrong and in most Bible versions, it is omitted.

At this stage, you may be coming to the conclusion that John is just so much garbage and invention that has been badly edited. However, it is little or no different from any of the other Gospels in this respect. Some of the scribblings bear a remarkable resemblance to the Qumran Scrolls and probably account for the “non-Jewish” nature of the Gospel.

So, when we come to ask what John:1:1 means, the answer is “God knows”. The additions, amendments, corrections, insertions, redactions, inventions, etc. etc. were done all over the place.

I looked up a commentary on John:1:1 and as a bonus got two. The first was an incomprehensible passage that simply assumed things. The second was a wall of text that left me feeing that nothing had been explained and that if so much writing were required to explain one verse, then the writer had no idea of what it meant either.
 1. also known as “Eusabius the Liar” for his idea that telling lies is a good way of gaining converts and thus saving souls.

Please supply source material. preferably not a wiki link. Not for the commentary. A true Christian wouldn't even use that garbage anyway. I also suspect this commentary concerns the bible not the original txt, as there was no verse nor chapter separation. I would also be interested to know something of this man's personal convictions. It always helps to know the motivations.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: One Above All on December 09, 2013, 06:09:03 PM
Truth:
Quote from: Book of the One Above All
In The Beginning, there was the One Above All. He was omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, invincible and benevolent. In His infinite wisdom, He spawned forth one universe. The One Above All watched, without interfering in any major way, as the universe He created evolved. After a very long time, one being in this universe managed to ascend and join the One Above All in eternal glory as a god. The One Above All then spawned another universe, whereas the newly empowered god created a different one. From each universe, a new god arose. The cycle continued for countless eons, with The Plan being fulfilled in each and every universe without fail.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Andy S. on December 09, 2013, 11:50:24 PM
I was told this thread "proves" John 1:1 can't be Jesus. That would contradict it's self. Notice The Word is capitalized indicating it's a proper noun or a name/title. If TheWord is not Jesus then we have a contradiction in John1:14 The Word became flesh.

"The Word" is not capitalized in Koine Greek.  Words are not capitalized in Koine Greek to indicate proper nouns or names/titles.

I would have to agree with you that the "Word" is referring to Jesus in John 1.  However, the "Word" may or may not be actually equated with the one true God.  This might be hard to believe but when I was a Christian I found that there were many difficulties in the Bible.  I was fortunate enough back then to come across a great bargain on a book entitled, "The Big Book of Bible Difficulties" by the popular apologist, Norman L. Geisler.  Once I saw the size of this book I should have immediately abandoned my belief that the Bible was the inerrant word of God.  I am ashamed how I held on to this view of the Bible for so long in my life.  Ironically, this book of bible difficulties is actually a lot thicker than my Bible.  When I lost my faith I was pissed that I spent $2.50 on this book but now I hold it up as an object lesson to those who think the bible is inerrant.  Although it takes up a massive amount of room on my book shelf, I think it is at least worth the money to keep it around and use it as an object lesson as I keep my old Bible right next to it.     

Anyway, there is no definite article before God in the last part of John 1:1 (...the Word was God).  However, there is a definite article before God in the first mentioning of God in this verse.  Norman L. Geisler states in this book: "In Greek, when the definite article is used, it often stresses the individual, and, when it is not present, it refers to the nature of the one denoted.  Thus, the verse can be rendered, 'and the Word was of the nature of God'."

The JW's actually have a compelling argument concerning this verse and their translation of this verse ("...the Word was a God) could actually be more accurate than most "Trinitarian" translations of this verse.  If the Word was only of the nature of God then this verse could actually be excluding Jesus from being the one true God as my son is of the nature of me but is not actually me.

But who knows, the Bible is written so ambiguously that only the writer of this section of John actually knows the correct meaning.  The Bible was made up of different authors, writing different books, at different times, with different theologies for different purposes and it was written so ambiguously that what came out of all of it was different interpretations.     


Gen 1:1 in the beginning god created... The original Hebrew shows the word translated as God there is pural. Elohim is also in a plural form showing clearly that God even when he created was still a trinity.

I would have to disagree with the two words you used in this sentence: "showing clearly".  There are not very many things that are clearly shown in the bible and the doctrine of the Trinity is definitely not clearly shown in the bible.  Iranaeus (120-202 AD) was an early church father and check out how he interpreted the Hebrew word Elohim.  The "plural" you are referring to could be signified as "that which contains all" and not meaning a plurality of persons in the Godhead (the Trinity).  Read section 3 of this letter of Iranaeus:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxxvi.html

In my estimation, a lot of the early "Church Fathers" before the council of Nicea seemed to have more of an Arian view of Christ and the Godhead.

Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 10, 2013, 03:59:39 AM
Just to mention the Greek here. The verse 'and the word was god' is the one JWs latch onto to show that Jesus was not 'the god' but 'a god' the Greek says, literally, 'the word was god. Now when there is a complement in Greek (i.e. with the verb to be is being used the complement is the second thing to be mentioned - e.g. 'my cat is Willow', Willow is the complement. It's like an object but the very 'to be' doesn't have any action.) Anyway, the article is left off the complement in Greek to show which word is the complement. Remember in languages like Greek word order is not important as all the words have the ending suited to their role in the sentence.

So our verse has the Word as the subject and god as the complement. Thus we could translate it as either 'the word was the god' or the more normal 'the word was god' given then the readers usually accept that there is only one god.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Graybeard on December 10, 2013, 09:28:41 AM
Please supply source material.
I don't wish to appear lazy but if you follow the link or look up Wiki article on "The [wiki]Gospel of John[/wiki]", you will find what you are looking for
Quote
preferably not a wiki link.
Well, Wiki has links to links. Try them.
Quote
A true Christian wouldn't even use that garbage anyway.
Yes, I know - was it not Jesus who said, "And the foolish virgin consulted Wikipedia and her soul was lost."?
Quote
I also suspect this commentary concerns the bible not the original txt,
You should know by now that there is no "original text." However, there are some manuscripts that survive. Not all identical and there are others that must pre-date John and yet contain similar material.
Quote
as there was no verse nor chapter separation.
As I seem to recall, chapter and verse separation appear relatively late on.
Quote
I would also be interested to know something of this man's personal convictions. It always helps to know the motivations.
And also provides excellent ammunition for an ad hominem argument, eh? : )
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Graybeard on December 10, 2013, 09:46:41 AM
And you forgot his phobia re: iron chariots.
This, from “The Hexateuch” By W. E. Addis, Pub. 1893 is mildly interesting as stones were hewn with iron tools:

Ex:20:25. And if thou make me an altar of stones thou shalt not build it of hewn stones, for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. (Hebrew Bible)

Which has the footnote:

‘Thou hast polluted.' For the early superstitions which forbade the use of iron, see Frazer's [wiki]The Golden Bough[/wiki][1] i. pp. 172- 178.

 1. and http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bough11h.htm The reference goes to Chapter 21 but does not specifically address Judaism
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Andy S. on December 10, 2013, 09:50:47 AM
Wow, look at all these different translations for one single verse.  Why do you think God would make his word so confusing.  Why couldn't he just make all humans speak the same language so there would be no confusion when it comes to understanding his "divine" word.  Oh ya, it's because he was scared of humans building to big of a tower in babel.  Doesn't that story sound ridiculous now that we know how massive the universe is?

In Greek, it is possible for a noun to act as an adjective when it is not accompanied by the definite article.  Consider a biblical example of this in John 6:70:  Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the twelve?  Yet one of you is a devil!"  The noun devil can act more like an adjective.  Jesus was saying that Judas had the qualities of the devil.  The lack of the definite article can cause a noun to act as a predication rather than an identification.  Regarding this point, noted Bible scholar William Barclay writes in his book "Jesus as They Saw Him":

When in greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs... "John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore , is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs... "This passage then [John 1:1] does not identifiy the Logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor does it call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God.

"
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 10, 2013, 11:26:56 AM
Harbinger,

The oldest piece of John's Gospel (http://www.historian.net/P52.html) is dated to around 125 CE
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: harbinger77 on December 10, 2013, 12:47:13 PM
so we have a few a options in the translation... either the Word is God or the Word shares the same nature as God or simply the word is a god option 3 creates many gods this would make God a lier. He said there are no gods other than Him. seeing that we know Elohim is the creator when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.
 don't see much conflict between options 1 and 2. As Jesus could be rightly depicted as being God or sharing in the nature of God therefore, the actual shared nature makes Him also God. Place 1:1 in context and you see this Word is a person or at the least a personification. However, the Word is refered to as He and Him. ariving at 1:14 the word became flesh taking the whole council of the bible line upon line precept upon precept there is little choice that the word is Jesus who is God. It's not that hard. keep it in context of the whole Bible as well as the whole chapter you found it in.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 10, 2013, 12:50:50 PM
so we have a few a options in the translation... either the Word is God or the Word shares the same nature as God or simply the word is a god option 3 creates many gods this would make God a liar. He said there are no gods other than Him. seeing that we know Elohim is the creator when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.
 don't see much conflict between options 1 and 2. As Jesus could be rightly depicted as being God or sharing in the nature of God therefore, the actual shared nature makes Him also God. Place 1:1 in context and you see this Word is a person or at the least a personification. However, the Word is referred to as He and Him. arriving at 1:14 the word became flesh taking the whole council of the bible line upon line precept upon precept there is little choice that the word is Jesus who is God. It's not that hard. keep it in context of the whole Bible as well as the whole chapter you found it in.

....so just what are you arguing for here? I'm not clear where you are going with this?
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Truth OT on December 10, 2013, 01:17:54 PM
so we have a few a options in the translation... either the Word is God or the Word shares the same nature as God or simply the word is a god........

The terminology seems to be causing you to be confused to the point where you make unnecessary assertions and place limitations on the possible interpretations that you need not place.
This texts says NOTHING at all about the nature of god (Greek theos meaning mighty, not Hebrew El or Elohim) or the nature of the LOGOS translated in most texts as 'word'. All it says is that the logos was with the mighty one and that the logos itself was in fact mighty and eventually was embodied in human form.

...option 3 creates many gods this would make God a lier. He said there are no gods other than Him.

But wasn't this god you claim this about also quoted as having stood in the "gathering of gods" in Psalm 82?

seeing that we know Elohim is the creator when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.

Only we know no such thing AND on top of that, this "trinity" concept you assert calls for yet another big leap that throws logic out of the window.

Place 1:1 in context and you see this Word is a person or at the least a personification.

Or this logos was a concept that originated from the mighty one that eventually came to be embodied based on what the writer of John claims.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Jag on December 10, 2013, 02:17:04 PM
seeing that we know Elohim is the creator
Um, we don't "know" any such thing, but for the sake of argument.....
Quote
when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.
...do you realize that this "trinity" concept puts christians at odds with the other two major Abrahamic religious traditions? All three share the OT as THE source document for the basis of their beliefs but only christianity assumes a trinity - the other two find the concept shocking and blasphemous. Same source, dramatically different conclusions draw from it.

And in some cases, those differences of interpretation are worth killing over.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 10, 2013, 03:08:16 PM
seeing that we know Elohim is the creator
Um, we don't "know" any such thing, but for the sake of argument.....
Quote
when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.
...do you realize that this "trinity" concept puts christians at odds with the other two major Abrahamic religious traditions? All three share the OT as THE source document for the basis of their beliefs but only christianity assumes a trinity - the other two find the concept shocking and blasphemous. Same source, dramatically different conclusions draw from it.

And in some cases, those differences of interpretation are worth killing over.

Well that's the problem of deities not making sure their texts ar4e correctly written down so as not to leave things open for interpretation. 'Elohim' is plural in the Genesis text - probably to avoid the use of an existing Babylonian god El but also to show the greatness of the character, being a such an amazing type. the trouble is that the use of the plural form meant that further on in Genesis, when the creation of Man comes along, we have the 'let us make god in our own image' which immediately makes us think of an heavenly council - rather like earthly rulers would have had. We can also think that it is how a king or queen might speak (here in the UK the queen used the 1st person plural being herself as a person and the queen.) It could have been what the Hebrews thought but we don't really have any way of knowing.

So, we have badly written texts so it is hardly surprising that John jumps in with his gospel and takes the 'word' that Elohim issues to create things and links it to Jesus. As the spirit of god (ruah elohim) is also in the beginning of genesis, it is hardly surprising that the early theologians could come up with a workable trinity that match Genesis. The important thing was that the people clearly though Jesus wasn't just the usual wandering preacher and started worshipping him. After that, well the Trinity had to be born.

Now this is all very well but the other religions - well Judaism, the Christians though should have converted and the Muslims clearly didn't recognise the finality of the Gospels wherein their religion should never have been started; and neither should the Mormons come to that. (Those two religions have a lot in common in their founding don't they?) That's as far as Christians are concerned. The other rligions might just not agree though...
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Graybeard on December 10, 2013, 04:14:51 PM
this would make God a lier. He said there are no gods other than Him.
I get really fed up of so-called Christians inventing things that God said.
No, God never said that. Quite the reverse, The Bible name many other Gods. Yahweh merely says they are false (i.e. they tell lies) gods. There is even a story where one god defeats Yahweh! (I bet you didn't know that.)

Please. It seems to me that your religion is one that you have made up. The god is very similar to you and you pick and choose a few verses and then invent things and then you suddenly become an expert on yourself, who you worship.

Yahweh makes it clear that he is not a god to be "interpreted", he is a god to be obeyed. How can you obey him if you have no idea what he is saying?
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 10, 2013, 04:33:56 PM
I'd say its tough working one's way through the OT trying to understand it on the way and to see how the theology which has developed over 2,000 years or more fits the texts. I'd say it was much easier to start with a few well know verses and just work with them. After all, the result is more or less the same.

Of course, if one looks carefully at the  NT is seems that its no so much dogma that is handed out but more the idea of forming communities in which people worship and share life together. Of course if the various lone christians, of whom we see quite a lot these days, realised this, and realised that having the right doctrine wasn't the point,they might be shocked too much to carry on...
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Andy S. on December 12, 2013, 03:15:38 PM
.

There is even a story where one god defeats Yahweh! (I bet you didn't know that.)

Hey Graybeard, I'm curious as to which "story" you are referring to here.


Yahweh makes it clear that he is not a god to be "interpreted", he is a god to be obeyed. How can you obey him if you have no idea what he is saying?

It is hard to obey Yahweh when people have no idea what he is saying.  I struggled with this as a Christian.  Luke 18:29 states:

"Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life".

To be obedient, should I have interpreted these verses literally and left my wife and child to follow this glorified cult leader?  Or are these verses supposed to be interpreted metaphorically? 

Out of the thousands of sermons I have heard I have never heard a pastor interpret these verses literally and encourage their flock to leave their families for the sake of the kingdom of God.  Even hard-core fundamentalist pastors draw the line when it comes to interpreting these verses literally.  I love to hear the spin doctoring when pastors preach on this section of scripture. 
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 12, 2013, 03:58:56 PM
this would make God a lier. He said there are no gods other than Him.
I get really fed up of so-called Christians inventing things that God said.
No, God never said that. Quite the reverse, The Bible name many other Gods. Yahweh merely says they are false (i.e. they tell lies) gods. There is even a story where one god defeats Yahweh! (I bet you didn't know that.)

Please. It seems to me that your religion is one that you have made up. The god is very similar to you and you pick and choose a few verses and then invent things and then you suddenly become an expert on yourself, who you worship.

You know this is what I have thought for a long time but, today, I was introduced to a video that shows this happening in front of our eyes.

We all know William Lane Craig. In the clip that starts the video, he explains that he knows, thanks to the Holy Spirit within him what the truth is and this truth is not open to argument or reason. So when reasoned argument is presented to Craig, he can just ignore it as being not relevant or plain wrong. now whilst some people might allow Craig to actually have this divine being dwelling in him, most of us would think this idea  is merely an expression of the brain's ideal and that the experience he has is the invention of a god - in Craig's own image. we could probablt establish this by checking on everyone's image of god and finding they are all different.

Anyway here's the video - its 32 mins long but worth the watch I would say.

http://youtu.be/7RX4Lug7wv4

Quote
Yahweh makes it clear that he is not a god to be "interpreted", he is a god to be obeyed. How can you obey him if you have no idea what he is saying?

It's this interpretation that is the root of the problem with religions in general. There are so many and they are all different.  It's probably why the literalist fundamentalists are rather popular as, in theory, interpretation is not involved - at least it is hidden from the 'flock',
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Andy S. on December 12, 2013, 05:58:49 PM
so we have a few a options in the translation... either the Word is God or the Word shares the same nature as God or simply the word is a god option 3 creates many gods this would make God a lier.

THAT'S IT!  Thanks harbinger.  John chapter 1 makes a lot more sense to me now.  I now think I have the correct understanding of this text.  The conclusion is that God is a liar!  This totally helps me understand these other verses as well:

1. Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

2. Matthew 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (2nd coming)

3. Matthew 10:23 "Truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes."

4. Matthew 26:64 "nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Conclusion: If you think Jesus is God then God is a liar.  Thanks Harbinger, these verses make a lot more sense to me.  Why didn't Jesus come back in the generation of the disciples?  Because he is a liar!  That makes much more sense than thinking Jesus was linguistically challenged and when he said, "this generation" he really meant "that generation".  The fact that Jesus lied about the timing of his second coming makes him a false prophet.  Deuteronomy 18:22 states:

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken.  The prophet has spoken it presumptuously you shall not be afraid of him."

I am so relieved!  Now I don't have to "be afraid" of Jesus when he says, "these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence" (Luke 19:27).  AWESOME!  The bible says that if a prophet is false then I don't have to "be afraid" of him (Jesus).

As Jesus could be rightly depicted as being God or sharing in the nature of God therefore, the actual shared nature makes Him also God.

False.  This is a non sequitur.  It would not follow that Jesus is the one true God because he shares the nature of Yahweh.  The shared human nature that my son has with me does not mean that he is one being with me.

Place 1:1 in context and you see this Word is a person or at the least a personification. However, the Word is refered to as He and Him. ariving at 1:14 the word became flesh taking the whole council of the bible line upon line precept upon precept there is little choice that the word is Jesus who is God. It's not that hard. keep it in context of the whole Bible as well as the whole chapter you found it in.

There is little choice that the word is Jesus who is God?????  Then why was/is there so much confusion over the nature of the Godhead throughout Church history?  If it is so clear then why would there have to be so many councils and creeds trying to nail down the correct understanding of the nature of God?

You say to keep it in context of the whole chapter of John 1.  I say let's "keep it in context" of the whole book of John.  There is NOT "little choice that the word is Jesus who is God".  Here are just a few verses in John that would contradict the idea that Jesus is the One True God. 

1. John 3:16: "...He gave His only begotten Son...".

     If the Son is begotten then he cannot be co-eternal with the Father.

2. John 5:27: "He gave Him (Jesus) authority to execute judgement..."

     If Jesus is the one true God then He wouldn't have to be given authority.

3. John 5:30: "I (Jesus) can do nothing on My own initiative"

     Jesus is not all-powerful

4. John 6:38: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

     If Jesus does not have the same will as the one true God then he is not the same "being" as the one true God.

5. John 6:57: "I (Jesus) live because of the Father"

    Jesus is not the one true God if He relies on the Father to live.

6. John 8:28: "I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me"

     If Jesus has to be taught things then he is not all-knowing like 1 John 3:20 says of God.

7. John 10:18: "This commandment I received from My Father" and John 14:31: "I do exactly as the Father commanded Me".

     The one true God does not receive commandments; He gives commandments!  Jesus is not the one True God.

8. John 13:16: "Nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him" and John 14:28: "for the Father is greater than I".

     Jesus is not co-equal with the Father

9. John 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent".

     This excludes Jesus from being the one true God unless the verse would read, "...the only true God WHO IS Jesus Christ..."

10. John 20:17: "I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God."

     Jesus cannot be the one true God because he says here that He has a God.  The one true God does not have a God!


So there are verses in John that might include Jesus in the Godhead but there are also many verses that exclude Jesus from being the one true God.  So I hope you understand now that it is not clear even in the book of John that Jesus is the one true God. 

Furthermore, you might already know that the majority of scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel to be written and then Matthew and Luke stole (and embellished) from Mark.  You will be hard-pressed to find that the author of the gospel of Mark thought that Jesus was the one true God.  Don't you think that revealing to the readers that Jesus is the one true God is an important bit of information to leave out of a gospel?   







 
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: harbinger77 on December 13, 2013, 12:29:23 AM
this would make God a lier. He said there are no gods other than Him.
I get really fed up of so-called Christians inventing things that God said.
No, God never said that. Quite the reverse, The Bible name many other Gods. Yahweh merely says they are false (i.e. they tell lies) gods. There is even a story where one god defeats Yahweh! (I bet you didn't know that.)

Please. It seems to me that your religion is one that you have made up. The god is very similar to you and you pick and choose a few verses and then invent things and then you suddenly become an expert on yourself, who you worship.

Yahweh makes it clear that he is not a god to be "interpreted", he is a god to be obeyed. How can you obey him if you have no idea what he is saying?

There ya go this is Isaiah 44:6-8. This is just one place He says it.
6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of
Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of
hosts: 'I am the first and I am the
last, And there is no God besides Me.
7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and
declare it; Yes, let him recount it to
Me in order, From the time that I
established the ancient nation. And let
them declare to them the things that
are coming And the events that are
going to take place. 8 Do not tremble
and do not be afraid; Have I not long
since announced it to you and declared
it? And you are My witnesses. Is there
any God besides Me, Or is there any
other Rock? I know of none.

Your turn. God was defeated? Chapter and verse please?

Most of what I see quoted as contradiction is pulled from context or simply misunderstood. Some of this seems willful. It must be my 10 year old can answer most of these from context alone. Read the bible. A whole book for yourself. I promise most of the time the answer is right there in the text.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: wheels5894 on December 13, 2013, 03:30:24 AM
harbinger,

You seem to have decided, a priori, that the text of the bible is, effectively, the words of god. You argue about whether the text makes god a liar fir example. Yet there are not just 2 choices but three.

1. The text is true and the word from god

2. Actually, god is telling lies in his text

3. Men made this stuff up - including any gods referred to in the text but were not good enough as authors to make sure everything added up.

Unless you are prepared to accept 3. I for one will to be able to accept your view of the text as it is clear the holes in the text about Jesus that Andy has shown you strongly suggest that the text is a  'not-very-well-plotted' human construction as even a god who lied would manage to get the story right - to make sure that everyone got the right message from the text.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Graybeard on December 13, 2013, 07:16:31 AM
.

There is even a story where one god defeats Yahweh! (I bet you didn't know that.)

Hey Graybeard, I'm curious as to which "story" you are referring to here.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/cgodsandgoddesses/a/chemosh.htm

2Ki:3:5: But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.
2Ki:3:6: And king Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time, and numbered all Israel.
2Ki:3:7: And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, saying, The king of Moab hath rebelled against me: wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle?  And he said, I will go up: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, and my horses as thy horses.

2Ki:3:16: And he said, Thus saith the LORD, Make this valley full of ditches.
2Ki:3:17: For thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts.
2Ki:3:18: And this is but a light thing in the sight of the LORD: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand.
2Ki:3:19: And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.
[...]
2Ki:3:26: And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.
2Ki:3:27: Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall.  And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

So who was the god that defeated the Armies of Yahweh?
 
2Ki:23:13: And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Andy S. on December 13, 2013, 11:58:43 AM
harbinger,

You seem to have decided, a priori, that the text of the bible is, effectively, the words of god. You argue about whether the text makes god a liar fir example. Yet there are not just 2 choices but three.

1. The text is true and the word from god

2. Actually, god is telling lies in his text

3. Men made this stuff up - including any gods referred to in the text but were not good enough as authors to make sure everything added up.

Unless you are prepared to accept 3. I for one will to be able to accept your view of the text as it is clear the holes in the text about Jesus that Andy has shown you strongly suggest that the text is a  'not-very-well-plotted' human construction as even a god who lied would manage to get the story right - to make sure that everyone got the right message from the text.

What a concept!!!  You are right wheels, there is a third option.  It definitely makes sense that men made this stuff up.  However, if there is a Christian God there is evidence in the bible that he is a liar.  But it is beyond me why anyone would want to worship such a jerk. 

It does seem to me that the bible was put together at different times by different authors, with different purposes, who had different theologies.  And what came out of all this was/is different interpretations concerning almost every doctrine imaginable in the bible.

But wait a second.  Maybe we are over-thinking all of this wheels.  Maybe we are trying to be too intellectual in our approach to the understanding of the bible.  Jesus says, "You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent..."(Matt. 11:25).  It could be that we are using our "NATURAL" brain too much.  Paul says, "But a NATURAL man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised"(1 Cor. 2:14).

In addition, it might be that we can't fully see that Christ is actually God because "...the god of this world (another god I guess) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving..."(2 Cor. 4:4).  Even though I have not witnessed anything supernatural in my life, it is very plausible that this supernatural force is blinding my mind.  I can't prove Paul wrong so he is probably right. ;D

There should be a book out there entitled: "How to overlook biblical contradictions for dummies".  The ironic conclusion of this book would be....."If you want to believe that the bible has no contradictions and is the infallible and inerrant word of God, then you can't use your natural brain and you must become a dummy".       
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Andy S. on December 13, 2013, 02:58:25 PM

Most of what I see quoted as contradiction is pulled from context or simply misunderstood. Some of this seems willful. It must be my 10 year old can answer most of these from context alone. Read the bible. A whole book for yourself. I promise most of the time the answer is right there in the text.

Good.  Maybe your 10 year old son can help me out.  Read Isaiah 44:6-8 to your son and emphasize that there is no God besides the one true God (Yahweh).  Then show him John 1:1 and point out that Jesus is the "Word" which is the one true God.  Then read him John 20:17 where Jesus says he has a God.  And then ask your 10 year old son, "Why does the resurrected Jesus say that he has a God when Jesus is the "Word" who is the one true God"?  This should be easy for your son since the "answer is right there in the text", right?

By the way, think about what you wrote.  You said, "some of this seems willful".  Shouldn't ALL of this seem willful if I'm wrong?  By saying that only some of this seems willful is giving a horrible account of the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15).  And then your "account" gets worse by saying, "I promise most of the time the answer is right there in the text".  Shouldn't you be saying that ALL THE TIME the answer is in the text?
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: Andy S. on December 13, 2013, 04:43:52 PM
.

There is even a story where one god defeats Yahweh! (I bet you didn't know that.)

Hey Graybeard, I'm curious as to which "story" you are referring to here.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/cgodsandgoddesses/a/chemosh.htm

2Ki:3:5: But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.
2Ki:3:6: And king Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time, and numbered all Israel.
2Ki:3:7: And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, saying, The king of Moab hath rebelled against me: wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle?  And he said, I will go up: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, and my horses as thy horses.

2Ki:3:16: And he said, Thus saith the LORD, Make this valley full of ditches.
2Ki:3:17: For thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts.
2Ki:3:18: And this is but a light thing in the sight of the LORD: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand.
2Ki:3:19: And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.
[...]
2Ki:3:26: And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.
2Ki:3:27: Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall.  And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

So who was the god that defeated the Armies of Yahweh?
 
2Ki:23:13: And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.

Thanks Graybeard.  I thought this might be the story you might be referring to.  The word indignation (KJV) always threw me off because indignation means: "strong displeasure at something considered unjust, offensive, insulting, or base; righteous anger".(Dictionary.com).

The correct translation (in my opinion) should be "wrath".  You will see here in this link why "wrath" is a better translation for the Hebrew word "qu-sep".   

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/ketzef_7110.htm

In my NASB bible the Hebrew word "qu-sep" is actually translated as "wrath".  The word "wrath" definitely fits the text better in my opinion.  The word "indignation" can possibly give an interpretation that the Israelites  departed because they thought the sacrifice of the Moabite son was "unjust" and they had "strong displeasure" of this sacrifice.

Thanks for the link.  Good evidence concerning this section of scripture.  When the "Moabite stone" says "And Chemosh drove him before my sight" the "him" is definitely referring to Yahweh and could not be talking about the opposing king since there was more than one opposing king involved in the battle. 

Personally, I don't know if I could go so far to say that another god defeated Yahweh though.  Welllll, maybe.  It depends on how you define "defeat".  One definition of defeat is "to win victory over".  In that case I would have to agree with you.  What I can say for certain is that the Christian God is a liar because in 2 Kings 3:18 it says, "...He (the LORD) will also give the Moabites into your hand".  This is an unconditional promise.  The text doesn't say, "The LORD will give the Moabites into your hand unless the king sacrifices his son to Chemosh". 

Do you know what boggles my mind Graybeard - the fact that the God of the bible has to use Israelite armies to accomplish his purposes and kill people he doesn't like in the old testament but then in the new testament he can just kill people he doesn't like on the spot like Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5).  If God has the power to just kill people on the spot then why wouldn't he just kill all the Moabites on the spot and not rely on the Israelites who are scared of the wrath of Chemosh.  Even if the Israelites were scared of the wrath of Chemosh then Yahweh should have stopped all the hearts of the Moabites in order to fulfill his promise in 2 Kings 3:18.

For some added comedy, I give you John McArthur's commentary on 2 Kings 3:27:

"It seems best to understand that the king's sacrifice inspired the Moabites to hate Israel more and fight more intensely.  This fierceness perhaps led Israel to believe that Chemosh was fighting for the Moabites.  Thus, the indignation or fury came from the Moabites". :laugh:

Warning to Christians: Keep on reading into chapter 4 of Kings and don't investigate and ask the follow-up question: "What happened to the promise in 2 Kings 3:18.       
Title: Re: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 13, 2013, 07:10:07 PM
Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins.

Why?

 Sacrifice your good animals so the priests could eat well without doing the work?.....It must have been a good life for a priest back then. The priest decides what sin he makes up for you,tells you the penalty (sacrifice) and eats well for the rest of the week.


@@ sorry for the late response,playing catch up##