John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[Kermos]

@Aunty Jane @Rich R @APAK @tigger 2 @JohnPaul @Keiw @True Faith

Truly, Lord Jesus Christ says "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58).

Jesus says I AM, and He did not say "I was created".

So, one week before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM ring true.

And, two weeks before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM resound true.

And, three weeks before Abraham was born Jesus' words of I AM are true.

And, the minute prior to the minute any of all the angels were created Jesus' words of I AM trumpet true.

And, the week prior to any of the angels being created Jesus' words of I AM harmonize truthfully.

No matter when in time one seeks before Abraham was born, Jesus Christ's words of I AM remain absolutely true.

Going back in time, Jesus is always I AM, never created, He is always I AM.

Going back in time, anytime in all eternity because Jesus says "before Abraham" with no exceptions, Jesus Being.

Behold, Going back in time, Jesus Being.

JESUS IS EVERLASTING going back in time.

Jesus says "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

The angel Gabriel declared to Mary about Jesus "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end" (Luke 1:33).

Behold, Going forward in time, Jesus Being.

JESUS IS EVERLASTING going forward in time.

GOD is exclusively the One that IS EVERLASTING going back in time and going forward in time.

God is everlasting.

Jesus is everlasting.

No one except God is everlasting.

Everlasting YHWH God is Lord Jesus Christ for He declares "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58).

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8, see also Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13), thus says He Who is coming on the clouds!

"I am YHWH, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).

"Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.

All people that think Jesus Christ was created hold to news that is not the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:6-7), so you have no gospel at all.

 

[True Faith]

You lied.

Game Over.

And your high-handed proud behavior in not repenting of your lie reveals your character.

The Lord have mercy on you!

YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOUR SELF!

If I were a weak Christian you would have been responsible for the loss of one for whom Christ died.

“And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” (1 Corinthians 8:11)

Repent of this behavior before it’s too late.

Here’s more scripture you can snub your nose at:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

With you jumping to conclusions and making claims, it is not me who lied, it is you.... So, you have falsely accused me of something you misunderstood as being directed at you... I almost got sucked into your lie... yet I caught myself after I had tried to gain understanding then I went up and reread the post you quoted and noticed where your misunderstanding was...

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Unlike you I follow the conversations closely and honestly. I’d rather assume that you made a mistake, but your arrogance and continued dishonesty leads me to assume otherwise.

Post 581

You claim that Jesus is God Himself

Your lie comes first. Then…

Post 586

if I am wrong please tell me who you believe that Jesus is then??

You question comes after the lie.

SO REPENT OF YOUR LIE!

You aren’t going to smokescreen me, you’re not that slick.

 

[True Faith]

Unlike you I follow the conversations closely and honestly. I’d rather assume that you made a mistake, but your arrogance and continued dishonesty leads me to assume otherwise.

Post 581


Your lie comes first. Then…

Post 586


You question comes after the lie.

SO REPENT OF YOUR LIE!

You aren’t going to smokescreen me, you’re not that slick.

So sorry you do not know how to read ..

 

[Michiah-Imla]

@Michiah-Imla I asked you a question and you did not even read it...

You are right.

I was so insulted by your first sentence in your post (in addition to your other blasphemous posts) that I did not bother to read further. That’s right.

By this point I was dismissing your garbage outright due to your previous outrageous statements!

Christians like you make fellowship impossible.

The Holy Bible is a cherished possession that brings us close to God. You might as well have insulted my wife and children, that’s the fury that you triggered in me!

I think I’ll just leave you to your erroneously beliefs. It’s not worth rolling around in the mud with you any longer!

 

[True Faith]

You are right.

I was so insulted by your first sentence in your post (in addition to your other blasphemous posts) that I did not bother to read further. That’s right.

By this point I was dismissing your garbage outright due to your previous outrageous statements!

Christians like you make fellowship impossible.

The Holy Bible is a cherished possession that brings us close to God. You might as well have insulted my wife and children, that’s the fury that you triggered in me!

I think I’ll just leave you to your erroneously beliefs. It’s not worth rolling around in the mud with you any longer!

Actually you are bound to back up your accusations...

So instead of just Quoting one little piece, please quote the entire piece...

And since the Bible and God are inseparable, and the Bible is the word of God...

Titus 1:9-16 "9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."


are you going to disobey the word of God?

 

[True Faith]

The Holy Bible is a cherished possession that brings us close to God. You might as well have insulted my wife and children, that’s the fury that you triggered in me!

Yet scripture, the Bible, the Word of God inseparable from God, says James 1:19,20 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: 20For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."

 

[True Faith]

It is interesting that these people actually do not know what it means to be one with God, and it shows..

You are right.

I was so insulted by your first sentence in your post (in addition to your other blasphemous posts) that I did not bother to read further. That’s right.

By this point I was dismissing your garbage outright due to your previous outrageous statements!

Christians like you make fellowship impossible.

The Holy Bible is a cherished possession that brings us close to God. You might as well have insulted my wife and children, that’s the fury that you triggered in me!

I think I’ll just leave you to your erroneously beliefs. It’s not worth rolling around in the mud with you any longer!

You are showing that your faith is in the Bible and not in God Himself... You are also showing that you do not read scripture, or anything for that matter, for comprehension and edification...

we already know that you do not understand the Bible at all because, if the Holy Spirit, who is God Himself, is to guide you in truth, please tell me why you would need a Bible if God is the one guiding you?

 

[True Faith]

When a person claims that the Bible and God are inseparable, yet defy both, they believe neither God or what the Bible has to say.

other than that, when a person has to use the Bible to validate their faith, it is not God they have their faith in at all but only the Bible, and it shows...

if you get offended by those statements, then they are true statements...

If you are not offended by them then, you truly understand God and his message for you...

If you get angry over those statements then you have not read the Bible at all.

if you claim that you do not have to defend your beliefs and your doctrine, then you have not read your bible at all..

I say these things to show you that Satan will make you offended and Satan will make you go against God by ignoring Him.

 

[Dropship]

But if we've already searched the scriptures and found Jesus, it's a case of mission accomplished..:)

Thank God that holy men throughout history did not have your attitude. Otherwise we might not have the word today. But holy men did constantly read and copy the scriptures so that we might do the same today.

Jesus can be found in any simple gospel like this one, so if anybody is unable to find him there, not all the intense studying of the entire bible is going to help them..:)
In fact by implying we need the whole bible to find him might make ordinary people give up and think "I'll never find him in there, it's too complicated", and I'm sure that'd make satan chuckle.
As Paul said-
"I am worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3)

 

[Kermos]

Logos as "a god" and Philo

We are told in an article by Dr. Frederick C. Grant of the Union Theological Seminary, New York City,

“Another term found in koine [New Testament] Greek and adopted by the early Christians is Logos (Word), meaning...the divine mediator between God and the world (John 1:1-18) or the divine thought or utterance, by which - or by whom - all things hold together (Colossians 1:17); that is, the One who is God’s agent in the creation and the continued existence of the universe (Hebrews 1:3). Such a term is not entirely philosophical: its real background...is not Stoicism or Stoical Platonism so much as it is the theosophical or ‘mysteriosophical’ theorizing of various religious cults and movements found here and there in the ancient Near East [the most influential and best-known of
...snip

It sounds like a Jew named Philo (Jews oppose the Gospel of Christ and even try to discredit the Good News) heard John's testimony recorded in John chapter 1.

Praise God for John's intensity and amplification by reinforcing God with "the God, and God" in John 1:1.

Let's examine the Apostle John's words "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1, in Greek "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος").

POINT 1: significance of "the God, and God" in Greek.

Of the three clauses in John 1:1, the transition between the 2nd and 3rd clause is "τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς" which is word-for-word English as "the God, and God".

In this passage we have the word "God" (θεόν) preceeded by the definite article "the" (τὸν) with the same word "God" (θεόν) followed by the conjunction "and" (καὶ) in turn followed by the word "God" (θεὸς) in anathrous (no definite article), essentially, "τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς" which is word-for-word English as "the God, and God".

The sequence employed by John is significant because John reinforces with intensity and amplification the usage of the word "God" with John's repetition of the word "God".

It is well established that the Jews repeat things to intensify, amplify, reinforce, and emphasize a point being made.

The Apostle wonderfully binds the word "God" (θεόν) and the word "God" (θεὸς) in a harmony of One - the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) which includes the person of the Word of God (John 1:1, John 1:14).

John clearly means the One True God, the God Most High, YHWH God (Deuteronomy 6:4), for both instances of "God" in John 1:1 because John uses the word "God" in tandem in the verse.

In Truth (John 14:6), John uses both occurrences of "God" in John 1:1 as equivalent terms.

This means that the Apostle John is calling the Word (the Word is Jesus, John 1:1, John 1:14) "God"!

POINT 2: John confesses One True God.

John knew of the commandant "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3); therefore, John referred to Jesus as YHWH God (θεὸς) with "the Word was God" in John 1:1 because John would not violate the commandment.

John has no gods before YHWH God, that is, Jesus is YHWH God according to the words of the Apostle John.

John knew that God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4), and John made it clear that Jesus is the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) in John 1:1.

This means that the Apostle John confesses Jesus, the Word of God, is everlasting "God"!

POINT 3: another anathrous occurrence of the word "God" (Θεὸν) in John 1.

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him" (John 1:18, in Greek "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο").

Recall, anathrous means a noun without an article, such as, in English, "the" for a definite article or "a" for an indefinite article.

The first occurrence of "God" (Θεὸν) in John 1:18 refers to YHWH God, yet this word "God" (Θεὸν) is anathrous, that is, there is no article, in like manner to there is no article for the word "God" (θεὸς) with "the Word was God" in John 1:1.

A Greek language semantic similarity exists between John 1:1 and the Septuagint's Nahum 1:2 in that each of these verses employ an anathrous Θεὸς (God) noun. Nahum 1:2 in the Septuagint contains an anathrous Θεὸς (God) referring to the One True God, YHWH. Here is the Greek "Θεὸς ζηλωτὴς καὶ ἐκδικῶν κύριος, ἐκδικῶν κύριος µετὰ θυµοῦ ἐκδικῶν κύριος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐξαίρων αὐτὸς τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτοῦ" (Nahum 1:2) for which the Septuagint translated to English is "God is jealous, and Lord is punishing; Lord is punishing with rage; Lord is punishing his adversaries, and lifting away himself of his enemies" (Nahum 1:2) - clearly Θεὸς (God) refers to the One True God, YHWH God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Behold, Θεὸς (God) in Nahum 1:2 is the same word as θεὸς (God) in John 1:1!

Truly, the anathrous word "God" (Θεὸν/θεὸς) in John 1:18 and John 1:1 refers to YHWH God.

This means that the Apostle John proclaims the Word of God integrally is YHWH God!!!

POINT 4: English usage of a noun without a definite article ("the") nor an indefinite article ("a" or "an")

This example illustrates the English language's flexibility to use a noun with an article or without an article.

One full apple pie in a pie tin sliced into 3 equal size pieces remains to be one pie for sale in a baked goods display cabinet.

The three pieces of pie are the one pie.

One piece of the pie is pie.

The word "one" means one, yet the degree of the focal point may vary; in other words, the layer of abstraction can change for a given person, place, or thing.

While this prelude portion of the example of the word "one" establishes a point of reference for the words of Jesus recorded in John 10:30 and John 17:21-23, now I move on to present another example by expanding the previous example to apply to John 1:1 through the next paragraph's dialog between a mom and her son.

The mommy asked "did you eat pie before dinner?", and Josiah answered "I ate one slice of pie at Levi's house."

Notice, the mommy used the noun "pie" without an article, not a definite article (the) nor an indefinite article (a or an).

The mom refers to the one actual pie including the three individual pieces, and the language frame is similar to John's use of the word "God" in anathrous within John 1:1.

The Apostle John refers to the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) including the person of the Word with his words of "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The second occurrence of the word "God" in John 1:1 is undeniably and truthfully the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Analogies can have a point of failure, but the above firmly proves the point in Truth (John 14:6).

CONCLUSION 1 (relates to POINT 1 above):

Mere human understanding cannot understand the harmony of the word "God" (θεόν) and the word "God" (θεὸς) in John 1:1, so the hearts of unregenerate souls tear the Word of God down from Deity into a mere man; therefore, the fleshly souls persist in a state of damnation.

The Holy Spirit reveals the glorious harmony recorded in John 1:1 which declares Jesus is the One True God!

CONCLUSION 2 (relates to POINT 2 above):

John is not going to refer Jesus as God resulting in two gods.

You subtract the fullness of "God" (θεὸς) in John 1:1; therefore, you have more than one God because you say that John 1:1 contains "the Word was a god".

Since your heart contends that Jesus is "a god", then you have more than one god which places you in violation of "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3).

According to your heart's treasure, you claim to have YHWH God + Jesus a god = two gods.

CONCLUSION 3 (relates to POINT 3 above):

The anathrous Greek word for "God" translates to meaning YHWH God elsewhere besides John 1:1 in the New Testament, for example the first occurrence of the word "God" in John 1:18 does not have an article where the word "God" means YHWH God - in like manner to John 1:1.

People that claim Jesus is created and that Jesus is not YHWH God deny the Word of God.

CONCLUSION 4 (addressing your scope exceeding claim that there are many gods with respect to the New Testament)

The Greek word θεὸς (Strong's 2316 - also Θεὸν - Theos, theos [transliteration] - God, Deity, god, deity [English]) can be dependent upon surrounding grammar and context.

The Greek word ἄγγελος (Strong's 32 - aggelos [transliteration] - messenger, angel [English]) is the parlance for angel in the New Testament, and the word θεὸς (God) is never used to refer to an ἄγγελος (angel) in the New Testament.

In the 27 books of the New Testament, the word "god" is used in one of two ways.

The first way is in the good sense which is in reference to YHWH, and I prefer a capital "G" for the good sense, like this, YHWH God.

The second way is in the evil sense which can be in reference to the devil, and I prefer a lower case "g" for the evil sense, like this, the god of this world.

Only two senses for the word "god" exists, and the senses are either good or evil. There is no middle ground.

Of the over 1000 times that the Greek word θεὸς (Strong's 2316 - also Θεὸν - God, god) or it's inflections are used in the New Testament, only the good sense or the evil sense indicated above are represented, as shown in this concordance page blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2316/nasb95/tr/0-1/, and I reviewed all the included verses to make certain - and θεὸς (God) is not used one time to indicate angels.

The good sense for the word θεὸς (God) applies to Jesus; therefore, John declares Jesus is YHWH God in John 1:1 for only God is good (Mark 4:18).

THE GREEK WORD THEOS (GOD) EXCLUSIVELY REFERS TO THE ONE TRUE GOD (DEUTERONOMY 6:4) IN THE GOOD SENSE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, SO "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD" (JOHN 1:1) REFERS TO JESUS AS THE ONE TRUE GOD.

 

[RedFan]

It sounds like a Jew named Philo (Jews oppose the Gospel of Christ and even try to discredit the Good News) heard John's testimony recorded in John chapter 1.

Philo died before John's gospel was written. It's possible that John read Philo. But not vice versa.

Philo likewise taught that the Logos was the creative agent of God. Following Greek philosophical distinctions between types of causes, Philo held that God is the efficient cause, by whom the cosmos was made, while the Logos was the instrumental cause, by means of which the cosmos was made. This subtle distinction was recognized even by Paul, his contemporary, who wrote to the Corinthians of “one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

For Philo, the creative Logos was also the “image” of God referenced in Genesis’ telling phrase, “Let us make mankind in our image.” Philo wrote in his famous Questions and Answers on Genesis:

“Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god, saying
that he made man after the image of God, and not that he
made him after his own image? Very appropriately and
without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by
God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the
similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only
after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the
supreme Being.”

Yet, for Philo, calling the creative Logos a “second deity” entailed no retreat from monotheism, because this second principle remained subordinate to the first. As Philo wrote in his Questions and Answers on Exodus:

“In the first place (there is) He Who is elder than the one and
the monad and the beginning. Then (comes) the Logos of the
Existent One, the truly seminal substance of existing things.
And from the divine Logos, as from a spring, there divide and
break forth two powers. One is the creative (power), through
which the Artificer placed and ordered all things; this is
named ‘God.’ And (the other is) the royal (power), since
through it the Creator rules over created things; this is called
‘Lord.’”

Did John read Philo? It's impossible to tell. But if you want an alternative explanation of the declaration of identity in John’s opening verse, one that avoids characterizing the Logos as the God of transcendence by designating it as the God of creation, Philo is an ally -- as long as you take "In the beginning" to mean at the beginning of Creation, and not some earlier time. Philo declared, in his discourse on Allegorical Interpretation, that “the Word of God is over all the world, and is the most ancient, and the most universal of all the things that are created.” In this respect he is more aligned with Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and other modern-day Arians in their interpretation of John's Prologue.

 

[tigger 2]

Logos as "a god" and Philo

We are told in an article by Dr. Frederick C. Grant of the Union Theological Seminary, New York City,

“Another term found in koine [New Testament] Greek and adopted by the early Christians is Logos (Word), meaning...the divine mediator between God and the world (John 1:1-18) or the divine thought or utterance, by which - or by whom - all things hold together (Colossians 1:17); that is, the One who is God’s agent in the creation and the continued existence of the universe (Hebrews 1:3). Such a term is not entirely philosophical: its real background...is not Stoicism or Stoical Platonism so much as it is the theosophical or ‘mysteriosophical’ theorizing of various religious cults and movements found here and there in the ancient Near East [the most influential and best-known of these being that of the Jewish theosophy of Philo - T2].” - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957, vol. 3, p. 654.

“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew [‘the chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism’ - J. B. Lightfoot’s commentary: Epistle to the Philippians, p. 130] is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.” - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.

“The idea of a Logos, an immanent reason in the world, is one that meets us under various modifications in many ancient systems of thought, - Indian, Egyptian, Persian. In view of the religious syncretism of the second century, it is barely possible that these extraneous theologies may have exercised some influence on the Fourth Evangelist, but there can be little doubt in regard to the main source from which his Logos doctrine was derived. It had come down to him through Philo, after its final development in Greek philosophy.” - p. 146.

“…. every verse in the Prologue offers striking analogies to corresponding sayings of Philo. We have seen reason to believe that John had acquainted himself directly with the works of the Alexandrian thinker, and consciously derived from them.” - p. 154, The Fourth Gospel, Its purpose and Theology, E. F. Scott, D.D.

“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos” - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.

Speaking of theosophy and Philo,

We find that Philo Judaeus was a “Jewish philosopher: b. about 20 B.C.; d. not later than 54 A.D.”

“...his philosophy was thus strictly a theosophy. It rested, as its direct foundation, on the Jewish scriptures as an inspired revelation....”

According to Philo, “Between God and the world there is an intermediate being, the Logos.” And “The Logos is the most universal of all beings except God.”

Philo also (unlike the pagan Greek Stoic philosophers) “gives the Logos the titles of Son of God [John 1:34], paraclete [‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’ - 1 John 2:1], and mediator between God and man [1 Tim. 2:5].” - Americana, 1957, v. 21, pp. 766, 767.

Philo also:

“differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [2 Cor. 4:4].” Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son [Ro. 8:29]....divine [a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)

And,

“Philo describes the Logos in terms which often bear striking resemblance to NT descriptions of Christ .... Philo distinguishes God as the cause by which [and]..., the Logos as that through which (di’ hou), ... the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6] and “even as θεὸς [‘a god’] in a subordinate sense” [Jn 1:1] and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death [Jn 4:14].” - A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 135, vol. 3, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.

We also see that:

“Philo....made use of it [Logos] on the basis of such passages as Ps. 33:6 to express the means whereby the transcendent God may be the Creator of the universe and the Revealer of himself to Moses and the Patriarchs. .... On the side of biblical exegesis the Logos is identified with the Angel of the Lord...and is described...as High Priest [Heb. 6:20], Captain and Steersman, Advocate (Paraclete) and the son of God.” - p. 703, New Bible Dictionary.

Trinitarian Dr. H. R. Boer also tells us:

“Philo...put a mediator between God and the world. This mediator he found in the Logos. He is the greater of the powers with which God is surrounded [these ‘powers’, the angels of God, are sometimes called ‘gods’ by Philo, the first Christians, and even in the Bible itself - RDB]. In him Philo saw a divine power that is less than God [cf. John 1:1c, AT and Moffatt], standing between God and the world. Through him God has created all things [cf. John 1:3]. Later, this thought played a large role in the attempt of Christian thinkers to explain the relationship of Christ to God.” - A Short History of the Early Church, 1976, p. 12.

“Philo of course conceives of the Logos - which he occasionally calls divine (θεος) [literally, ‘a god’], but never ‘God’ (ὁ θεος) - as the highest angel and as the highest idea at the same time....” - p. 126, John 1, Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.

We even find Philo saying: the Divine Logos “has been anointed” [Messiah/Christ means the ‘Anointed One’] and “his father being God, who is likewise Father of all” - p. 69, Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.

The Encyclopedia Britannica also tells us about Philo’s “Logos”:

“Thus there is close similarity of symbolism between Philo and the fourth evangelist [John], and they move in the same [Jewish] world of thought ....” - p. 251, vol. 14, 1968.

And the trinitarian Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 833, also admits:

“Though it is clear that the author was influenced by the same background of ideas as Philo, his identification of the Logos with the Messiah was entirely new.” – Oxford University Press, 1990. (But, of course, we have seen a connection between one who has been anointed [messiah] and the Logos in the works of Philo described in Philo, vol. 5, quoted above.)

 

[tigger 2]

Yes, as we have seen above, a large number of highly distinctive descriptions of the Logos by Philo have also been used by John to describe his Logos: Jesus! These terms are used by Philo alone, not by other trinitarian-proposed sources of John’s Logos concept!

After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a respected trinitarian work concludes:

“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].” - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.

Even the famed Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:

“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].” - p. 136, vol. 8. This includes his teaching that the Logos was a god!

I don’t intend to accuse the Apostle John of actually adopting part of Philo’s theosophy, but if he were making a comparison between Christ and a popularly understood Hellenistic concept of the word Logos at that time, he would have used the popular Logos concept of Philo, the Jewish theosophist who at least based his theosophy “as its direct foundation on the Jewish scriptures as an inspired revelation.”

As The Expositor’s Greek Testament tells us in its introduction to the Gospel of John: “The idea of the Logos was a Jewish-Alexandrian idea, and that the author sought to attach his Gospel to this idea is unquestionable…. But the term and the idea of the Logos are used by the author to introduce his subject to the Greek readers. As Harnack says: ‘The prologue [John 1:1 - John 1:18] is not the key to the understanding of the Gospel, but it is rather intended to prepare the Hellenistic reader for its perusal’.” - p. 671, Volume One.

And if John were writing to a group of the “many ... Hellenistic Jews” who had become a part of the Church (or who were at least interested in Christianity), there would be no need to explain the Logos concept which they were already very familiar with from Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. (The lack of any explanation of his Logos concept by John has been troubling to many students of the Prologue of the Gospel of John.) And that concept is that the Logos (although the second highest power in the universe, the Son of God, the Mediator between God and Man, the one through whom God created all things) is an intermediate entity who is not the Most High God but is called ‘a god’!

 

[Kermos]

Your religion rejects what Jesus taught and are misleading you to do the same.
Matt 6:33--Therefore, keep on seeking-FIRST- the kingdom and his( YHWH(Jehovah) righteousness
John 17:3--Jesus teaches--the one who sent him= THE ONLY TRUE GOD.

Why wont you believe Jesus?

Philo died before John's gospel was written. It's possible that John read Philo. But not vice versa.

Philo likewise taught that the Logos was the creative agent of God. Following Greek philosophical distinctions between types of causes, Philo held that God is the efficient cause, by whom the cosmos was made, while the Logos was the instrumental cause, by means of which the cosmos was made. This subtle distinction was recognized even by Paul, his contemporary, who wrote to the Corinthians of “one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
...snip

Logos as "a god" and Philo

We are told in an article by Dr. Frederick C. Grant of the Union Theological Seminary, New York City,

“Another term found in koine [New Testament] Greek and adopted by the early Christians is Logos (Word), meaning...the divine mediator between God and the world (John 1:1-18) or the divine thought or utterance, by which - or by whom - all things hold together (Colossians 1:17); that is, the One who is God’s agent in the creation and the continued existence of the universe (Hebrews 1:3). Such a term is not entirely philosophical: its real background...is not Stoicism or Stoical Platonism so much as it is the theosophical or ‘mysteriosophical’ theorizing of various religious cults and movements found here and there in the ancient Near East [the most influential and best-known of these being that of the Jewish theosophy of Philo - T2].” - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957, vol. 3, p. 654.

“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew [‘the chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism’ - J. B. Lightfoot’s commentary: Epistle to the Philippians, p. 130] is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.” - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.

“The idea of a Logos, an immanent reason in the world, is one that meets us under various modifications in many ancient systems of thought, - Indian, Egyptian, Persian. In view of the religious syncretism of the second century, it is barely possible that these extraneous theologies may have exercised some influence on the Fourth Evangelist, but there can be little doubt in regard to the main source from which his Logos doctrine was derived. It had come down to him through Philo, after its final development in Greek philosophy.” - p. 146.

“…. every verse in the Prologue offers striking analogies to corresponding sayings of Philo. We have seen reason to believe that John had acquainted himself directly with the works of the Alexandrian thinker, and consciously derived from them.” - p. 154, The Fourth Gospel, Its purpose and Theology, E. F. Scott, D.D.

“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos” - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.

Speaking of theosophy and Philo,

We find that Philo Judaeus was a “Jewish philosopher: b. about 20 B.C.; d. not later than 54 A.D.”

“...his philosophy was thus strictly a theosophy. It rested, as its direct foundation, on the Jewish scriptures as an inspired revelation....”

According to Philo, “Between God and the world there is an intermediate being, the Logos.” And “The Logos is the most universal of all beings except God.”

Philo also (unlike the pagan Greek Stoic philosophers) “gives the Logos the titles of Son of God [John 1:34], paraclete [‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’ - 1 John 2:1], and mediator between God and man [1 Tim. 2:5].” - Americana, 1957, v. 21, pp. 766, 767.

Philo also:

“differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [2 Cor. 4:4].” Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son [Ro. 8:29]....divine [a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)

And,

“Philo describes the Logos in terms which often bear striking resemblance to NT descriptions of Christ .... Philo distinguishes God as the cause by which [and]..., the Logos as that through which (di’ hou), ... the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6] and “even as θεὸς [‘a god’] in a subordinate sense” [Jn 1:1] and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death [Jn 4:14].” - A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 135, vol. 3, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.

We also see that:

“Philo....made use of it [Logos] on the basis of such passages as Ps. 33:6 to express the means whereby the transcendent God may be the Creator of the universe and the Revealer of himself to Moses and the Patriarchs. .... On the side of biblical exegesis the Logos is identified with the Angel of the Lord...and is described...as High Priest [Heb. 6:20], Captain and Steersman, Advocate (Paraclete) and the son of God.” - p. 703, New Bible Dictionary.

Trinitarian Dr. H. R. Boer also tells us:
...snip

Yes, as we have seen above, a large number of highly distinctive descriptions of the Logos by Philo have also been used by John to describe his Logos: Jesus! These terms are used by Philo alone, not by other trinitarian-proposed sources of John’s Logos concept!

After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a respected trinitarian work concludes:
...snip

The Apostle John and Philo were temporal contemporaries (@RedFan, see @tigger 2's post quoted above).

The Jewish leaders understood that John was an "uneducated and untrained" man (Acts 4:13), so this means that Philo would have been exposed to John's testimony as opposed to John being trained in Philo's philosophy.

It is much more plausible that Philo heard or read the Apostle John's testimony that Jesus Christ is the Word (Logos in Greek) and that the Word is God, as now recorded in John 1:1-5 and John 1:14.

Jewish leaders were involved in the persecution (Acts 4:1-31, Acts 5:12-42) and death of Apostles (Luke 23:21, Acts 12:1-3); therefore, Philo is a hostile witness against the Gospel of Christ because he was a Jewish leader.

Philo, as with other Jewish leaders (Acts 4:17), would be interested in eliminating knowledge of the Word or at least introducing confusion about the Word.

One such point of confusion would be Philo introducing the concept of the Word (Logos) being "a god" working as "God's agent" but "not God" but being "Son of God" but "never 'God'".

Philo has a HUGE problem because his philosophy has "a god" being "an intermediate entity" "between God and Man", so Philo’s Logos philosophy results in an other "god" being before God for man's salvation; therefore, Philo was living in sin against God because of the commandant "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3) - the Word written by God's own finger.

As is clearly evident, Watchtower Society people hold to Philo and his confusion, yet "God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33); therefore, Watchtower Society people do not believe in the Word.

Philo remains an advantageous hostile witness because Philo provides evidence of John testifying that the Word is God (John 1:1) before the book of John was penned in a complete compendium around 90 AD.

In other words, historically, Philo provides ample evidence that John's testimony, that the Word is God (John 1:1) even YHWH God, was actively taught in the lifetime of John the Apostle.

In other words, historically, Philo provides ample evidence that John's testimony, that the Word is God (John 1:1) even YHWH God, was actively taught in the lifetime of John the Apostle. (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] in post #611 in this thread).

Philo’s writing illuminates that John 1:1-5 as we have in the book of John is accurate despite Watchtower Society people's thoughts that other people corrupt John 1:1-5 as it appears in English Bibles such as the KJV, NASB, and ESV (@Keiw, this goes for you as a Watchtower Society person).

In fact, this means that the Watchtower Society's New World Translation bible's "the Word was a god" (John 1:1) is the teaching of a Jewish leader opposed to Christ and Christians, and that Jewish leader's name is Philo.

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Word of God proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58) and the Word of God says "I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever" (1 Chronicles 17:14), so according to the Word, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past and will exist in eternity future which means the Word is uncreated thus the Word proclaims that the Word is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past and future (Isaiah 45:5).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8).

 

[tigger 2]

Philo died about 50 A.D. The Apostle John wrote his Gospel around 100 A.D.

 

[Kermos]

Philo died about 50 A.D. The Apostle John wrote his Gospel around 100 A.D.

The Apostle John was proclaiming the Word at least as early as the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2:1-6, so this places Philo in position to hear or read a tractate of the testimony of John that Jesus is the Word, yet John is excluded from being trained in Philo's philosophy because Scripture records that John was an "uneducated and untrained" man (Acts 4:13).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

 

[Keiw]

The Apostle John and Philo were temporal contemporaries (@RedFan, see @tigger 2's post quoted above).

The Jewish leaders understood that John was an "uneducated and untrained" man (Acts 4:13), so this means that Philo would have been exposed to John's testimony as opposed to John being trained in Philo's philosophy.

It is much more plausible that Philo heard or read the Apostle John's testimony that Jesus Christ is the Word (Logos in Greek) and that the Word is God, as now recorded in John 1:1-5 and John 1:14.

Jewish leaders were involved in the persecution (Acts 4:1-31, Acts 5:12-42) and death of Apostles (Luke 23:21, Acts 12:1-3); therefore, Philo is a hostile witness against the Gospel of Christ because he was a Jewish leader.

Philo, as with other Jewish leaders (Acts 4:17), would be interested in eliminating knowledge of the Word or at least introducing confusion about the Word.

One such point of confusion would be Philo introducing the concept of the Word (Logos) being "a god" working as "God's agent" but "not God" but being "Son of God" but "never 'God'".

Philo has a HUGE problem because his philosophy has "a god" being "an intermediate entity" "between God and Man", so Philo’s Logos philosophy results in an other "god" being before God for man's salvation; therefore, Philo was living in sin against God because of the commandant "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3) - the Word written by God's own finger.

As is clearly evident, Watchtower Society people hold to Philo and his confusion, yet "God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33); therefore, Watchtower Society people do not believe in the Word.

Philo remains an advantageous hostile witness because Philo provides evidence of John testifying that the Word is God (John 1:1) before the book of John was penned in a complete compendium around 90 AD.

In other words, historically, Philo provides ample evidence that John's testimony, that the Word is God (John 1:1) even YHWH God, was actively taught in the lifetime of John the Apostle.

In other words, historically, Philo provides ample evidence that John's testimony, that the Word is God (John 1:1) even YHWH God, was actively taught in the lifetime of John the Apostle. (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] in post #611 in this thread).

Philo’s writing illuminates that John 1:1-5 as we have in the book of John is accurate despite Watchtower Society people's thoughts that other people corrupt John 1:1-5 as it appears in English Bibles such as the KJV, NASB, and ESV (@Keiw, this goes for you as a Watchtower Society person).

In fact, this means that the Watchtower Society's New World Translation bible's "the Word was a god" (John 1:1) is the teaching of a Jewish leader opposed to Christ and Christians, and that Jewish leader's name is Philo.

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Word of God proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58) and the Word of God says "I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever" (1 Chronicles 17:14), so according to the Word, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past and will exist in eternity future which means the Word is uncreated thus the Word proclaims that the Word is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past and future (Isaiah 45:5).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8).

Yes God was with us while Jesus was here, not in being but did all the powerful works through Jesus-Thats how-Acts 2:22-1Cor 8:5-6

 

[RedFan]

The Apostle John was proclaiming the Word at least as early as the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2:1-6, so this places Philo in position to hear or read a tractate of the testimony of John that Jesus is the Word, yet John is excluded from being trained in Philo's philosophy because Scripture records that John was an "uneducated and untrained" man (Acts 4:13).

I think this is fantasy, my friend.

First, the Logos musings in John's Prologue would never have been the Apostle's early oral "testimony" -- conceptually, it just doesn't lend itself to preaching of the sort that we know was going on in the first decade after Pentecost, nor would it have been intelligible as an evangelical tool to convert the hearer to Christianity.

Second, if it had been preached in those early years in anything remotely resembling the form it took in the Prologue, don't you think there would be a trace of it in some Christian writing somewhere? Yet there isn't a hint of John's Logos philosophy in any other writing predating John's Gospel, whether by Paul, the Synoptics, or anyone. That's where it would naturally have shown up. Not in Philo.

Third, the timing is extremely tight if not impossible. Philo wrote about the Logos in his Questions and Answers of Genesis and Questions and Answers on Exodus between 20 C.E. and 35 C.E. -- in Alexandria, not in Palestine. So when he penned those works he was in no "position to hear" John's Logos "testimony" that, decades later, became the prologue to John's gospel.

Fourth, by early tradition Mark, not John, went to Alexandria to develop the church there, likely after Philo's death. We have no reason to believe that John ever set foot in Alexandria. So someone else would have needed to deliver John's Logos theories in Alexandria at the time Philo wrote his treatises -- or deliver a "tractate" (written by some disciple of John's who wasn't "uneducated and untrained," perhaps?) accurately recounting it. What's the likelihood of that?

Fifth, there is not a shred of a mention of Jesus Christ in Philo's writings -- as there surely would have been if he had heard and become enamored of John's "testimony," whether directly or through others (if indeed there were any repeaters of John's musings at that time).

Conclusion: John didn't influence Philo.

 

[Kermos]

You make some good points and raise some interesting questions. While "pros" sometimes can be translated as "with," it's usual meaning indicates motion towards an object. It points to or refers to the object, in the case of John 1:1, it points to or refers to God.

The Greek in John 1:1 is, "pros ton theon" and the same phrase is found many times where it's translated as, "to God."

Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, pros:

Of relation with accusative case (which is the case of "God" in John 1:1b.
(a) toward, with: Rom 5:1, 2Co 1:12, Col 4:5, 1Th 4:12, al.;
(b) with regard to: Mat 19:8, Mar 12:12, Rom 8:31, al.;
(c) pertaining to, to: Mat 27:4, Joh 21:22, Rom 15:17, Heb 2:17; Heb 5:1;
(d) according to: Luk 12:47, 2Co 5:10, Gal 2:14, Eph 3:4; Eph 4:14;

Here is a diagram that shows the general meaning of Greek prepositions. Note that "pros" is a line that goes "towards" the object. That's just how the grammar works. I didn't invent the Greek language. :)



The problem with translating it as "with" in John 1:1b is that it makes 2 people, i.e., one person with another makes 2 people. As I said before, solving that problem by introducing Greek philosophy (oousia, essence) is not a good solution. God is able to explain Himself without having to resort to Greek philosophy.

You wrote "As I said before, solving that problem by introducing Greek philosophy (oousia, essence) is not a good solution", but you deleted the response in the very post to which you replied, so I provide the response here for you because God is Spirit (John 4:24) has direct relevance with the correspondence.

God is Spirit (John 4:24), and you called the Holy Spirit a 'grotesque "thing"'. You did a thing called blasphemy, and Jesus says something about blasphemy with "I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven" (Matthew 12:31).

You are very insulting against God because in your state as a natural man, you wickedly adulterate the Word of God.

"The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because spiritually they are discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

I posed no questions, Rich R, yet that's a pretty graphic, but it lacks complete coverage of Greek prepositions. For example, since the Greek word "pros" includes "with", then this is a valid example of an incomplete graphic representation.

God includes the person of the Word because John says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
​

One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) existing in 3 persons, that is, the person of the Father (Romans 1:7), the person of the Word (John 8:58, John 1:1-5, John 1:14), and the person of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26, Acts 5:3-4).

Your diversion about "with" or "to" does not change the fact that:

"The Word manifested flesh" (John 1:14), so Jesus is the Word.

Therefore, Jesus is God according to John's writing of "the Word was God" (John 1:1).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R[/URL]).